” [I] did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.”
[…]
“This matter is between me, the two people I love most – my wife and our daughter – and our God,” Clinton said.
[…]
“Wasn’t that pathetic? I tell you, what a jerk,” Hatch was overheard saying Monday night to his entourage as he left a television studio in Utah where he had given a number of interviews.
Now
“I cannot remember what was happening 20 years ago, 15 years ago. But some of the things sounds like me, which I was the first one to come out and say, you know, some of the things could have happened, I want to apologize,” Schwarzenegger said.
“We have to look at people who they are today, not what they may have done wrong in the past,” Hatch told the National Press Club Friday. “There isn’t a person in this room or anywhere else in the world who is perfect, who has lived perfectly.”
[…]
In answer to a question posed by reporters Friday, Hatch noted that Schwarzenegger has said most of the groping allegations detailed between 1975 and 2000 in a Thursday Los Angeles Times story are not true “but he’s apologized for acting improperly at times in the past.”
Why do you suppose it is that Republicans have such a hard time finding success as intellectuals?
Rep. Porter Goss said Thursday that the uproar over allegations that White House officials purposely identified a covert CIA agent appears largely political and doesn’t yet merit an investigation by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, which he chairs.
“I would say there’s a much larger dose of partisan politics going on right now than there is worry about national security,” said Goss, R-Sanibel. “But I would never take lightly a serious allegation backed up by evidence that there was a willful — and I emphasize willful, inadvertent is something else — willful disclosure, and I haven’t seen any evidence.”
Goss said he would act if he did have evidence of that sort.
“Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I’ll have an investigation,” Goss said.
[…]
Goss said he has no evidence that the controversy is more than a product of “wild and unsubstantiated allegations, which are being obviously piled on by partisan politics during an election year.”
Or, maybe he could ask his good friend Notra Trulock, freeper, liar and moron extraordinaire, to look into it for him. Notra was well known as a complete crank and total nutjob by the CIA, but ole’ Porter was so concerned that Clinton was some sort of Manchurian Candidate by way of Little Rock, that he couldn’t wait to get the investigation rolling. Goss and his pal Chris Cox investigated for months and the result was the single most outrageous intelligence committee report ever submitted. It was entirely debunked both before and after its release.
But, it wasn’t partisan in any way. No it certainly wasn’t.
All of this reminds me — I wonder whatever happened to Ms. Katherine Leung, GOP fundraiser and FBI plaything?
… there’s also one more person who could end this – the senior administration official who pointed his finger at two White House officials in the WaPo article 8 days ago.
Oh yes, indeed. Let the games begin.
Many assume that it’s Tenet for a variety of reasons, many of which are very compelling.
But, I think it’s somebody else. Somebody who has voiced concerns in the past about the political operation of the White House. Somebody who expressed alarm in Ron Suskind’s seminal Esquire article that Karl Rove would have unfettered power with George W. Bush after the resignation of Karen Hughes:
“I’ll need designees, people trusted by the president that I can elevate for various needs to balance against Karl. . . . They are going to have to really step up, but it won’t be easy. Karl is a formidable adversary.”
That, of course, was Andy Card.
Someone else in the same article went on to say:
“But many of us feel it’s our duty—our obligation as Americans—to get the word out that, certainly in domestic policy, there has been almost no meaningful consideration of any real issues. It’s just kids on Big Wheels who talk politics and know nothing. It’s depressing. Domestic Policy Council meetings are a farce. This leaves shoot-from-the-hip political calculations—mostly from Karl’s shop—to triumph by default. No one balances Karl. Forget it. That was Andy’s cry for help.”
In fact, if you go back and read the entire article, you find that there were a number of White House officials who said things like:
“It’s an amazing moment. Karl just went from prime minister to king. Amazing . . . and a little scary. Now no one will speak candidly about him or take him on or contradict him. Pure power, no real accountability. It’s just ‘listen to Karl and everything will work out.’ . . . That may go for the president, too.”
In his amazing article Susskind said:
They [Rove’s friends] heard that I was writing about Karl Rove, seeking to contextualize his role as a senior adviser in the Bush White House, and they began calling, some anonymously, some not, saying that they wanted to help and leaving phone numbers. The calls from members of the White House staff were solemn, serious. Their concern was not only about politics, they said, not simply about Karl pulling the president further to the right. It went deeper; it was about this administration’s ability to focus on the substance of governing—issues like the economy and social security and education and health care—as opposed to its clear political acumen, its ability to win and enhance power. And so it seemed that each time I made an inquiry about Karl Rove, I received in return a top-to-bottom critique of the White House’s basic functions, so profound is Rove’s influence.
So, who knows? But, it does seem entirely possible that rather than this being a purely political turf war between the Neocons and the CIA (as is being promoted with the idea that Tenet was the one who blew the whistle on the Plame leak operation) that the “Senior Administration Official” does come from the White House and is one of those who have been sitting on their disgust at the total domination of politics over governance.
Matt Yglesias says that voters shouldn’t let Arnold’s alleged piggish behavior affect their votes (not that he would vote for him):
Bill Clinton taught us that a person can have a strong record on women’s issues while treating women quite poorly in his personal life, just as LBJ showed us that a racist can end Jim Crow, while Truman and Nixon proved that anti-semites can be good friends of Israel. George W. Bush proves that a nice guy can screw the country up. This isn’t to condone Schwarzennegger’s misogyny (or anyone else’s racism or anti-semitism), simply to suggest that it’s not all that relevant to whether or not he should be governor.
Perhaps. But, if “character” is not relevant as to whether one should vote for Schwarzennegger, what is? He has no public record on which to base an assessment. The man is running on his movie star image and,
frankly, his association with the Kennedys. If he had a known record of strong support for women’s rights as Clinton did, or had demonstrated a shrewd knowledge of the winds of political change as Johnson did, or had years of foreign policy experience as Nixon had, perhaps his alleged character flaws could be put into the perspective of an entire career and would not loom as large when making a decision in the voting booth.
But, Arnold has no record of anything but being a very ambitious and pampered movie star.
One thing people may not realize about Arnold is that he is peculiarly unqualified for office even by Hollywood standards. He does not produce or direct films, he doesn’t run his own production company and he never risks his own money. Even Sandra Bullock and Demi Moore are more involved in the creative direction of their careers and have developed and produced their own vehicles.
Arnold is a hired gun. He comes on to a set without any responsibility for the actual nuts and bolts of raising money, adhering to the budget, maintaining the creative flow while massaging egos under strict time constraints and dealing with impossible logistics. In other words, he has been entirely removed from the day to day business and responsibility of the movie business. He shows up for work, sits in his trailer until he’s called, does his bit and goes home. When the film is finished he goes on a publicity tour to promote it. That’s it. It is not surprising that he would find plenty of time to be “playful” on the “rowdy” set. He isn’t involved in most of the work that goes on all around him. Indeed, he probably isn’t even aware of it.
There aren’t a lot of big stars like this anymore. Most of them , like Tom Cruise or Tom Hanks, are producers at the least and the smart ones like Eastwood and Redford have run their careers like a business with themselves at the producing helm most of the time and often behind the camera as well. They have experience running a production, hustling for money, dealing with executives on a business level, handling other stars’ egos etc. They have shown throughout their careers that they are, within their field … leaders.
Arnold is not one of those guys. He has come a long way from his beginnings as a body builder and created a niche for himself in high priced action films that make lots of money (particularly overseas.) But, he has not shown any kind of leadership in his own life beyond touting physical fitness and making a lot of easy money.
So, how does a person evaluate someone whose life and career show no obvious qualifications for the office he is seeking? Isn’t he, in fact, running solely on the idea that his character — as personified in his movie roles — is what qualifies him for office? Isn’t he presenting himself as a real life Action Hero?
In truth, his real life (at least for the last 20 years) has been one of incredibly spoiled and princely pampering, to the point that he has absolutely no clue about what is acceptable behavior because he’s been indulged beyond any normal everyday person’s ability to even imagine. This is why he says things like, “No one ever came to me in my life and said to me that I did anything, that said ‘I don’t want you to do that, you went over the line Arnold.'”
I imagine that this is quite true. Nobody tells Arnold Schwarzenegger, “I don’t want you to do that.” In his world, he is completely free to act with impunity because in his world he is the pasha, the prince, the coddled “product” who is beyond the realm of normal human behavior. His power is the power of a cossetted and overindulged brat.
These accusations may or may not be true. But, they certainly do fit the profile of this man who has never done anything but seek fame and power for their own sakes. If there were anything in his life that mitigated these alleged character flaws — intellectual development, a record of accomplishment, demonstrated leadership or even a campaign that featured a detailed and serious program and a well articulated vision — perhaps it wouldn’t be wise to take easily made and difficult to prove accusations in the last days of a campaign as a deciding factor.
But with Arnold, it’s pretty much all we’ve got to go on.
They’ve already looked for the weapons and couldn’t find ‘em. They sent in more people and looked again. Now they want 600 million dollars to look one more time.
They just want to keep looking until it comes out the way they want it to!
They’re trying to divine the location of the weapons of mass destruction!
“I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,” Limbaugh said on Sunday NFL Countdown. “There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team,” he said.
[…]
Limbaugh on Wednesday reiterated that he doesn’t think McNabb is a bad player, just that he isn’t as good as some media members think he is. “This is such a mountain out of a molehill,” he said. “There’s no racism here, there’s no racist intent whatsoever.”
This is so typical of cowardly bigots. They act as if they are completely clueless that what they are saying is racist. “Who me? I’d never do that.”
Limbaugh was basically saying that the NFL is practicing affirmative action and giving this guy McNabb a job he doesn’t deserve because he’s black. This is because the media are politically correct and demand it.
Can there be anything more absurd than this? This is professional athletics, not some junior college in Northern California. The National Football League, for gawd’s sake. Is there no corner of society in which Rush can allow that African-Americans may be making it on their own merit?
This really gets to the essence of modern racist rhetoric. The belief has been subtly reframed from an overt belief that racial minorities are inferior and must be kept in their place to a subliminal meme that they are inferior so they must be getting an unfair advantage when they are treated equally with whites.
To say that this applies in professional sports, one of the most meritocratic institutions in our society (and one which nonetheless still has vestiges of racist barriers to full participation) is a perfect example of how the modern racist mind works.
His apparent confusion as to the integrity of the man whom he reluctantly revealed as a souce after he had pled guilty to spying and blowing the covers of dozens of CIA assets (resulting in many deaths) is downright astounding.
According to Novak, (whom it seems is every treasonous Republican’s favorite reporter) the fact that Hanssen had spied for more than 30 years, had collected more than a million dollars in “fees” from the KGB and had been personally responsible for many deaths and compromises of national security, was not enough to fully convince him
that he wasn’t acting out of patriotism when he leaked to Novak that Janet Reno was endangering spies in China.
Unanswerable questions are pondered. During the lengthy interim when he was not betraying his country, could Hanssen have felt some genuine concern about the security of U.S. assets in China if they fell into the hands of the attorney general? Could he have experienced a sudden change of heart after disclosing the identity of U.S. assets in Russia?
Or, was he merely using me to undermine Reno — and his boss, FBI Director Louis Freeh, as well? …
Robert Hanssen is an enigma and will remain so at least until he reveals himself. The speculation that he is purely the embodiment of evil tends to be undermined by the validity of his report about Ray Wickman. He really may have been living a double-life, one as a patriotic, religious American and the other as spy of the century. That sounds fanciful, but any other explanation fails.
No, there actually is another explanation. The explanation is that Robert Hanssen, traitor and scumbag, was a sexually repressed, greedy, mentally unbalanced right wing Republican who would sell out his fellows, his family and his country for money and ego gratification. Anyone who believes that this is not the embodiment of evil has no business being on the receiving end of ANY sensitive information.
It is monumentally insulting that Novak would even ponder the possibility that a man like Hanssen remained a good patriotic American when he accused Janet Reno of being a traitor. It’s simply unbelievable.
Establishment Washington needs to start taking a good hard look at Novak’s work over the last 40 years. It seems he has often been a willing tool of those who like to commit treason. Perhaps the “pattern” required to establish a journalist’s culpability under the law is more obvious than we think.
As the White House hunkered down, it got the first taste of criticism from within Bush’s own party. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said that Bush “needs to get this behind him” by taking a more active role. “He has that main responsibility to see this through and see it through quickly, and that would include, if I was president, sitting down with my vice president and asking what he knows about it,” the outspoken Hagel said last night on CNBC’s “Capital Report.”
Just try to picture the scene in which Junior sits Cheney down and demands that he tell him what he knows about it.
IRAQ’S new finance minister, Kamel al-Gailani, announced a sweeping liberalization of his country’s economy at the annual meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Dubai early last week. Amid the controversy over President Bush’s request for $87 billion to finance the American presence in Iraq, the new laws hardly attracted attention in the United States.
But by almost any mainstream economist’s standard, the plan, already approved by L. Paul Bremer III, the American in charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, is extreme — in fact, stunning. It would immediately make Iraq’s economy one of the most open to trade and capital flows in the world, and put it among the lowest taxed in the world, rich or poor. Is this Middle Eastern nation, racked by war, ready for such severe experimentation? Moreover, the radical laws have been adopted without a democratic Iraqi government to discuss or approve them.
One would have thought that the failures of swift and sudden free market changes in Russia in the 1990’s would have made even extremist economists cautious. In Russia and other nations, spontaneously freeing markets from price controls, reducing taxes and suddenly privatizing business was supposed, almost overnight, to create a thriving economy.
In a recent book, “Income and Influence: Social Policy in Emerging Market Economies” (W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research; $14), two economists, Ethan B. Kapstein and Branko Milanovic, remind us how the assumptions behind such “shock therapy” were not borne out. To the contrary, the gross domestic product continued to fall for years in most of the “reformed” nations, and eventually unemployment rose rapidly. The failure to grow immediately after the transition became, in the words of the M.I.T. economist Olivier Blanchard, “the major theoretical challenge facing economists.”
And supply side economics, which argues that low taxes are the main ingredient in motivating people to save, invest and innovate, did not even work in the United States. The economist Arthur Laffer, a member of President Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board, claimed that reduced taxes in the 1980’s would actually raise tax revenue. President Bush’s current chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, wrote in his widely read textbook that “subsequent history failed to confirm Laffer’s conjecture.”
But never mind such historical lessons. The Iraqi planners, apparently including the Bush administration, seem to assume they can simply wipe the slate clean.
Those poor bastards.
C’mon. We aren’t going to do this, are we?
Waddya think, Tom Friedman? Is this what you had in mind when you pounded the war drum so we could empower the moderates in the mid-east by setting such a fine example of political freedom and democratic capitalism? Did you realize that what we were really doing was buying Ahmed and his little friends a brand new country to play with?
What a good idea. It just get’s better and better every single day.