posted September 27, 2006 01:20 PM              

Chris Wallace is a disgrace, not only to his profession for his cowardice and prostitution of himself to the Bush administration and corporate media, but mostly a disgrace to his own father, Mike Wallace, who was railroaded by the Bush administration for asking the hard questions and daring to speak his mind.

posted September 27, 2006 04:45 PM            

This guy should know, he ran the CIA desk tasked with tracking bin Laden.

Keith Olbermann shows America every day why his show is closing in on dead last in viewers and ratings.

Bill and Dick, Osama and Sandy
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By Michael F. Scheuer
July 5, 2006

With one credible September 11 movie, "United 93," under our belts, it will be interesting to see whether ABC-TV will complete the September 11 Commission's whitewashing of the pre-September 11 failure of U.S. intelligence-community leaders in its forthcoming mini-series based on Richard Clarke's memoir, "Against All Enemies."

Media teasers about the mini-series have said that Mr. Clarke -- the former "terrorism czar" -- and a senior FBI officer, the late John O'Neill, will be the heroes of the saga. If true, and if ABC's fact-checkers are not diligent in verifying Mr. Clarke's stories and claims, the mini-series will be the September 11 commission's dream come true: The Bush administration will be blamed for September 11, the feckless moral cowardice of the Clinton administration will be disguised and Mr. Clarke and Mr. O'Neill -- in my view, two principal authors of September 11 -- will be beatified.

Mr. Clarke's book, on the basis of my involvement to varying degrees in the issues it covers, is a mixture of fact, fiction and cover-up. Mr. Clarke seems to get most names and dates right, and is correct in damning the early Bush administration for obliviousness to the al Qaeda threat. We must also take him at his word on his touching, if sycophantic, tales of Mr. Clinton instructing a young boy to be good to his mom and Hillary Rodham Clinton's secluded moment praying on her knees.

On the fantasy level, Mr. Clarke lays it on thick. His claim that the Clinton administration "defeated an al-Qaeda attempt to dominate Bosnia" is nonsense; bin Laden sent few fighters there because he had no contiguous safe haven for them. Mr. Clarke's claim that "the CIA had taken months to tell the FBI" several hijackers were in America is a lie. FBI officers sat in the unit I first commanded and then served in and they read the same information I did. If the data did not get to FBI headquarters it is because the FBI then lacked, and still lacks, a useable computer system. The FBI did not know the September 11 hijackers were here because Judge Louis Freeh and Robert Mueller have failed to provide their officers computers that allow them to talk securely to their headquarters and other intelligence community elements.

Another spectacular untruth is on page 52: "Later in the 1990s, CIA... [failed] to put U.S. operatives into the country [Afghanistan] to kill bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership, relying on Afghans instead." Mr. Clarke, of course, was at the center of Mr. Clinton's advisers, who resolutely refused to order the CIA to kill bin Laden. In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke's reaction was that "it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden." I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke's response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so.

Mr. Clarke's book is also a crucial complement to the September 11 panel's failure to condemn Mr. Clinton's failure to capture or kill bin Laden on any of the eight to 10 chances afforded by CIA reporting. Mr. Clarke never mentions that President Bush had no chances to kill bin Laden before September 11 and leaves readers with the false impression that he, Mr. Clinton and Mr. Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, did their best to end the bin Laden threat. That trio, in my view, abetted al Qaeda, and if the September 11 families were smart they would focus on the dereliction of Dick, Bill and Sandy and not the antics of convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.

About John O'Neill, little needs to be said. In my own experience, Mr. O'Neill was interested only in furthering his career and disguising the rank incompetence of senior FBI leaders. He once told me that he and the FBI would oppose an operation to capture bin Laden and take him to a third country for incarceration. When I asked why, he replied, "Why should the FBI help to capture bin Laden if the bureau won't get credit among Americans for his arrest and conviction"?

posted September 27, 2006 05:09 PM            

Bill Clinton's performance on Sunday morning's Fox newscast was a rare look into the mean, defensive, and small man who was a total disaster as president. Dick Morris — a long-time pal of Bill Clinton — says in private that Bill Clinton knows he is a phony — and lives in mortal fear of "being found out."

Everything about him is phony: his "compassion," his "marriage," and his "devotion to helping people."

In effect, Bill Clinton remains what he has always been: a smart-ass, attention-starved motor-mouth who is never wrong.

Blaming the CIA and the FBI and the military for his failure to get Osama bin Laden is ridiculous: As president of the United States, the CIA, FBI and Joint Chiefs of Staff reported to him!

He had the power to either convince or order them to do what he wanted regarding retaliation for terrorist attacks on American forces and territories (U.S. Embassy attacks and the USS Cole). So to see Clinton blaming them for his failure to even attack Osama bin Laden is a peek into how this man's mind works.

"That depends on what your definition of ‘is' is," was — before this sure-to-be-notorious Fox interview — the perfect example of Clinton's hair-splitting. But now it is his portrayal of his utter powerless-ness to get his subordinates to attack Osama. If he truly wanted to get Osama, he could have gotten those attacks done.

The head of the bin Laden Desk at the CIA, Michael Scheuer, has made it clear that his unit (since disbanded by the Bush administration) was ready and willing to go into Afghanistan and hit Osama's camps. But the order never came from above.

Clinton is clearly stung by ABC's "The Path to 9/11" — and his inability to get Hollywood to change something to his liking. It must have been a huge shock to him that his base — the Hollywood left — couldn't or wouldn't bend to his demands and scrap the movie.

Instead, "The Path to 9/11" correctly showed Clinton as "out to lunch" and distracted by Monica. Oh, by the way, why doesn't someone ask Clinton this question: Why did Monica Lewinsky spend more time in the Oval Office with Clinton than did the director of Central Intelligence?

What does that say about his commitment to national security?

Now, while Clinton is trying to refurbish his damaged image, we have the spectacle of another long-time D.C. insider who seems to be at the epicenter of two of the biggest stories of our time: former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

First, Armitage comes forward with crocodile tears and apologizes for inadvertently leaking Valerie Plame's name in the CIA leak case. He claims to have leaked it "innocently" and in an off-handed manner to columnist Robert Novak.

The so-called mainstream media reports this — with nary a jaundiced eye. But, then, Novak comes forward and totally contradicts Armitage's recollection of the entire episode.

Then this past week it is revealed tha Armitage allegedly threatened the Pakistani government after 9/11 that the U.S. "would bomb you back to the Stone Age" if they didn't cooperate with us.

Armitage now denies using the Stone Age language; but the Pakistani government is certain of it — and was offended by it.

There are two huge stories — the post-9/11 war plan in Afghanistan and the intelligence leading to the war in Iraq — and Armitage is smack dab in the middle of both. And his take does not fit the memory of anyone else.

Curious, isn't it?

Either he is right and everyone else is wrong or mistaken — or he indeed is a dissembler of the first degree.

I have dealt with Armitage on the POW issue in Vietnam and Laos. He is one of the most dishonest people I have ever met.

Isn't it amazing how someone like Armitage just remains involved in every big story — in multiple administrations?

Both Clinton and Armitage are good examples of all that is wrong with our government: They are both self-serving egomaniacs who can't tell the truth even when it helps them.

posted September 27, 2006 06:27 PM              

I LOVE KEITH OLBERMANN....

He's the ONLY one who dares to tell it like it is......

(Lou Dobbs used to be that way, but he's getting more and more namby pamby....)

posted September 27, 2006 07:10 PM            

Keith Olbermann and the News...the way it never was.

I did not have sex with that nomad, Osama bin Laden
Posted: September 27, 2006
6:20 p.m. Eastern

Ann Coulter

It's just like old times. Bill Clinton delivers an impassioned speech, and within 24 hours the Web is bristling with documentation establishing that nearly every sentence was a lie.

The glassy-eyed Clinton cultists are insisting their idol's on-air breakdown during a "Fox News Sunday" interview with Chris Wallace was a calculated performance, which is a bit like describing Hurricane Katrina as a "planned demolition." Like an Osama tape, they claim he was sending a signal to Democrats to show them how to treat Republicans. Listen up, Democrats: Let's energize the undecideds by throwing a hissy fit on national television!

The Clintonian plan for action apparently entails inventing lunatic conspiracy theories, telling lots of lies, shouting, sneering, interrupting and telling your interlocutor, "(Y)ou've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever" – all for asking a simple question. To wit: "Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and al-Qaida out of business when you were president?" The only thing Clinton forgot to say to Wallace was, "You'd better put some ice on that."

Let me be the first to welcome Chris Wallace to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy! If the son of Mike Wallace is a member, can Chelsea be far behind?

According to Wallace, Clinton's aide, Jay Carson, demanded that the interview be stopped a few minutes into Clinton's tantrum – just before the part where he threw the lamp at Wallace. The last time Clinton got that red in the face, the encounter ended with a stained dress. Even Muslims thought Clinton overreacted. But the Clinton Kool-Aid drinkers tell us this was a masterfully planned set-piece by their leader.

I also think Jessica Savitch's slurred, incoherent broadcast on "NBC Nightly News" in October 1983 was intentional. Others say it was drug-addled breakdown that ended her career, but obviously Savitch intended to speak in garbled gibberish on air as a brilliantly executed prelude to her death in a ditch weeks later.

And when Stephen Colbert did a routine at the White House Correspondents Dinner that bombed, I think he planned it that way.

Then there was Capt. Joseph Hazelwood's meticulously planned off-loading of 11 million gallons of crude oil off the Exxon Valdez.

Clinton shouted so many lies during his televised meltdown, only the World Wide Web can capture them all. These are just a few.

Clinton yelled at Wallace: "What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."

This is so crazy it's worthy of an Air America caller. Clinton has consistently misrepresented the presidential directive about political assassinations. Clinton did not order bin Laden assassinated. He did not even lift the ban on intelligence agencies attempting to assassinate bin Laden.

What he did was lift the ban on political assassinations – provided that assassinating bin Laden was not the purpose of the mission. So if U.S. forces were engaged in an operation to capture bin Laden, but accidentally killed him, they would not be court-martialed.

Clinton said, "All the right-wingers who now say I didn't do enough said I did too much – same people." As proof, he cites his humiliating withdrawal from Somalia, claiming, "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in 'Black Hawk down,' and I refused to do it."

He added, as if it mattered, "There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with 'Black Hawk down.'"

In fact, what Republicans objected to was Clinton's transforming a U.N. mission in Somalia to prevent mass starvation into a much grander "nation building" exercise – something the Democrats now hysterically support in Darfur and oppose in Iraq.

Democrats long to see American mothers weeping for their sons lost in a foreign war, but only if the mission serves absolutely no national security objectives of the United States. If we are building a democracy in a country while also making America safer – such as in Iraq – Democrats oppose it with every fiber of their being.

When Clinton's "nation building" in Somalia led to the brutal killing of 18 Americans, some of whose corpses were then dragged through the streets, Clinton did what the Democrats are currently demanding we do in Iraq: He cut and ran.

Republicans didn't like that either, and it had nothing to do with whether it was al-Qaida we were running from. It could have been Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, al-Dawa or the Viet Cong. We ran, and the terrorists noticed.

Osama bin Laden told "ABC News" in 1998 that America's humiliating retreat from Somalia emboldened his jihadists: "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

posted September 27, 2006 10:09 PM              

I hope he keeps talking and telling the truth too, AG. Of course now he is probably number 1 on the Bush administration hit list. lol

That stuff about Clinton, the movie by Disney and all of this is just more of the Karl Rove type dirty, stinking to high heaven, type of politicing with the elections coming up in Nov. Let them cut their own throats.

Notice how the cost of gas has dropped too. It will, of course, go up right after the elections again. That should tell people that the oil companies and this administration are in league together and DO manipulate the cost of gas for their own profits and for political gain. Unfortunately that brought Bush's poll ratings up to 40% again. But still the majority of Americans are intelligent enough to know what is going on there with the gas prices and it politics as usual with this administration.

posted September 28, 2006 03:37 PM            

You seem to share a trait with Olbermann; seeing what isn't there.

Is Bill Clinton fit to be first lady?
Posted: September 28, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Before last weekend, I had never before questioned whether Bill Clinton was mentally stable.

Now I must add this concern to his other more well-documented pathologies – lying, womanizing, caring more about his own legacy than the security of the country, etc.

But his performance on Fox News Channel with Chris Wallace suggests he is seething with nearly uncontrollable inner rage – maybe the kind he unloaded on Juanita Broaddrick all those years ago.

Policies and worldview aside, it raises the question: Is this man fit to be, once again, so close to the center of power?

Granted it is his wife running for president. But they promised us a two-for-one deal in 1992 – and we got it. Surely, as an ex-president, Bill Clinton would be among Hillary's closest advisers should she be successful in her bid for the White House.

Clinton was sputtering furiously – accusing the low-key, laid-back Chris Wallace, a second-generation television newsman with impeccable establishment broadcast media credentials, of being part of a "right-wing" hit job. Apparently, he still believes there is such a thing as the "vast right-wing media conspiracy" his aides tried to peddle during his administration. Wallace, the son of Mike Wallace, established his right-wing resume over 15 years with ABC News and another 15 years with NBC.

Clinton was threatening. He was bellicose. He was out of control. And he was, as usual, dead wrong in nearly everything he said.

Clinton claimed he was besieged by conservative Republicans who thought he was obsessed by Osama bin Laden. Anybody remember anything like that?

At the same time, he claimed nobody knew who bin Laden was during most of his administration. Do I need to point out those are two contradictory notions?

He claimed: "There is not a living soul in the world who thought Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down." That would suggest a terrible intelligence failure on the part of the Clinton administration, since it is beyond dispute today.

Maybe the biggest "error" Clinton made in the interview was stating: "[No one] even knew al-Qaida was a growing concern in October of '93."

Perhaps if the Clinton administration had performed due diligence by thoroughly investigating the first World Trade Center bombing it would have discovered bin Laden's fingerprints all over the plot. But, the truth is the Clinton administration did not want to find evidence of Islamic terrorist activity in the U.S. It preferred to investigate "right-wing Christian fundamentalists," who, it believed, represented the real threat to the nation's security.

Astonishly, Clinton also claimed al-Qaida was not involved in Somalia. Even his buddy Richard Clarke was aware of that fact by 1998.

He also said those who criticized his cut-and-run policies in Somalia wanted him to pack up immediately.

As I cannot think of a single person who fits the category, I suggest Clinton owes us some names.

Here's another whopper: "[I] left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy (for the Bush administration)," he told Wallace.

That's substantially different than what his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, told members of the Select Committees on Intelligence Sept. 19, 2002: "… there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect." Richard Clarke agrees: "[T]here was no plan on al-Qaida that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," he was quoted as saying in a UPI story March 24, 2004.

And maybe the piece d' resistance from Clinton: "I worked hard to try to kill him (bin Laden). I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."

This is almost too funny to treat seriously. But then again, Clinton's malfeasance in office cost us 3,000 lives on Sept. 11.

"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten." What does that mean? That all he had to do was give the order – which he didn't give? I guess in that sense, he's right. Clinton had the opportunities to kill bin Laden. But he didn't do it. He had the opportunities to have him picked up by the Sudanese government and handed over to U.S. authorities. But he didn't do it.

Clinton, once again, has changed his tune about his own role in history. Here's what he told Robert Sam Anson in a Vanity Fair interview published June 2004: "At the time, in 1996, he had committed no crimes 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."

posted September 28, 2006 11:00 PM              

I think that if Ann Coulter wasn't spending all her money on botox and plastic surgery she might be able to afford a new dress. All I ever see her wear on any show is that short, tight black dress.

posted October 03, 2006 06:11 PM            

Clinton on Fox program.

Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden "is alive today" because former President Clinton didn't go after him, one of the CIA's unit heads under Clinton has confirmed.

On the CBS "Early Show," former CIA bin Laden unit chief Michael Scheuer said yesterday he was stunned by Clinton's televised outburst. In that interview a week ago with Chris Wallace, Clinton repeatedly jabbed his finger at Wallace and claimed credit for trying harder and getting closer to getting bin Laden than anyone.

"It's just an incredible kind of situation," Scheuer said, "for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."

Scheuer's comments were reported by Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak.

Novak pointed out that while Democrats were busy debating whether Clinton's performance was good or bad for their party, they all were overlooking Scheuer's harsh rebuke.

Clinton had accused Wallace of a "nice little conservative hit job" for asking him whether he believed he had done all he could to halt the terrorist campaign of bin Laden, who has claimed credit for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed more than 3,000 people.

"Scheuer's blunt remonstrance goes to the heart of what probably impelled Clinton's finger pointing on national television," Novak noted. "Rather than attempting to shape the midterm campaign, as Republicans believe, he was interested in protecting his legacy.

"No former president in the last half-century has seemed so sensitive to critical assessments of his tenure," wrote Novak, who also said there have been reports of a 20-minute Clinton tirade about the Whitewater investigation, and Clinton's infuriation at being described as weak on national security.

The newest criticism also comes from someone Novak said never would be "confused with being a Bush acolyte."

Scheuer, the ex-CIA man, resigned in 2004 after 22 years and published a critique of efforts by both Bush and Clinton, throwing in his opinion (low) of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Scheuer told CBS that Clinton's claim the CIA could not verify bin Laden was responsible for the earlier attack on the USS Cole is a denial of the facts.

"He defames the CIA … and the men and women who risked their lives to give their administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden," Scheuer said.

He said the Clinton administration had eight to 10 chances that the decision-makers just refused to take, while the Bush administration had one chance at Tora Bora, which failed.

His conclusions aren't going to be put in campaign ads for either party, however, Novak noted.

"Both President Bush and President Clinton have been very misleading to the American people, telling them we're at war because of our freedoms and our liberties and because of gender equality and because of elections. None of that is true," Scheuer said. "We're at war because of what we do in the Islamic world."

As WND reported earlier, Wallace said when Clinton lost his temper it felt like a "mountain was coming down in front of me."

Wallace said he'd asked Clinton what he considered a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al-Qaida."

"The president was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers – accused me of a 'conservative hit job' – and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. Chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off," Wallace said.

It was not the first time Clinton has unleashed his temper when asked a question. It was during a 1999 White House picnic when Clinton erupted at a question from WND Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry.

Reported Sperry at the time: "Clinton's not just intellectually intimidating, he's physically imposing. He's tall (6-2) and big-boned.

posted October 11, 2006 01:45 PM            

Keep up the good work Keith.

CABLE NEWS RACE
MON. OCT., 9, 2006
VIEWERS

posted October 11, 2006 07:15 PM            

Oh wait... if it is not the machines, then is must be people that are under the influence of the NWO and cannot think for themselves as we are all just energy producing pea pods for the Alien race...

Although I loved the movie Matrix, fiction is just fiction.

posted October 12, 2006 04:25 PM            

Thursday, Oct. 12, 2006 9:45 a.m. EDT
Chris Wallace: Registered Democrat

Bill Clinton accused interviewer Chris Wallace of doing a "nice conservative little hit job” when Wallace recently grilled him about his administration’s pursuit of Osama bin Laden on "Fox News Sunday.”

Evidently Clinton didn’t do his homework regarding Wallace’s political leanings. The Washington Post did – and found that the newsman has been a registered Democrat for more than 20 years.

Wallace, who lives in Washington, told the Post: "The reason I’m a registered Democrat is that in Washington, D.C., there is really only one party. If you want a say in who’s going to be the next mayor or councilman, you have to vote in the Democratic primary.”