BECAUSE THE TOY HOOKER WANTS TO SILENCE CRITICISM OF HILLARY CLINTON.
THE NEW YORK TIMES REALLY DID NOT GET A STORY WRONG (THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED TONIGHT AT THE COMMON ILLS IN FULL -- IT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED AT THE THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW IN "You've got some really strange and creepy heroes" AND "Mediaite's Posse Don't Do Media Criticism") -- BUT THE PAPER DID A STORY THAT DAVID BROCK AND HIS HANG DOWN ERIC BOEHLERT DID NOT LIKE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT GLOWING PRAISE OF CRANKY CLINTON.
SO THEY'RE SCREAMING FOR A FIRING SO THAT THEY CAN HANG A CORPSE AND SCARE ALL THE OTHER JOURNALISTS AWAY.
THEY ARE FASCISTS AND THEY ARE LIARS.
NEVER FORGET THAT DAVID BROCK -- DRUG ADDICT AND PROSTITUTE USER -- CAME TO FAME BY LYING ABOUT ANITA HILL TO PROTECT CLARENCE THOMAS.
THAT'S ALL DAVID BROCK KNOWS HOW TO DO: LIE.
Moving from the Congress to those who want to be president, the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee will be decided by voters in early to mid 2016. The declared candidates so far are (in alphabetical order): Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, Robby Wells and Willie Wilson.
CNN notes of one, "Chafee has struggled to make much traction in the Democratic presidential race. A recent CNN/ORC Poll showed less than 1 percent of democrats surveyed backed Chafee, compared to 57 percent for Clinton."
Chafee was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the authorization for the Iraq War in 2002. He then became an independent and is now a Democrat. Chafee is stressing his vote with regards to press favorite Hillary Clinton who voted for the Iraq War. David Cook (Christian Science Monitor) covers a Christian Science Monitor breakfast and neglects to record the menu but does note that Chafee stressed the 2002 Iraq War vote:
"I did my homework, I looked carefully to see if there were weapons of mass destruction. I didn't see it," he said. Clinton has said since that her Iraq War vote was a mistake.
When asked about polls showing voter concerns about Clinton’s honesty and credibility, Chafee said she had suffered “a lot of self-inflicted wounds, unfortunately.” But, he added, after the primary season is over, he and the other Democratic candidates would “certainly unite as Democrats to win in 2016.”
Jonathan Easley (The Hill) also covers Chafee's breakfast remarks and includes this:
“I have a lot of work to do,” Chafee said. “The reality is that secretary Clinton has a huge head start with endorsements and money and the rest of us are scrambling. But I think I have the vision, ethical standards and ideas. There’s still more to be don on fundraising and organization, but it doesn’t discount what I bring to the table.”
Hillary, of course, refuses to discuss Iraq.
She pretends a brief aside in her ghost written book from 2014 'addressed' and 'ended' the issue. David Lightman (McClatchy Newspapers) reminds:
Clinton said last year she regretted her vote. “I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple,” she said in her book, “Hard Choices.”
And she does that to the idiotic raves of Maggie Haberman, the New York Times reporter or 'reporter' who is making a career this year of minimizing and justifying Hillary's actions.
Haberman's coverage -- including her Tweets -- border on soft core porn -- you picture her as Brian De Palma's camera for the locker room scene in Carrie before Sissy Spacek gets her period -- was of course ignored by David Brock and other partisan hacks and whores last week as they rushed to insist the New York Times was always unfair to their crush.
Possibly due to the way the Iraq War vote continues to haunt her, Hillary appears unable to take firm positions today. Akilah Johnson (Boston Globe) reports on the town hall Hillary held today:
Bruce Blodgett, a software developer and conservative from Amherst, asked for a "yes or no" answer to whether Clinton "as president" would support the proposed pipeline -- an $8 billion project abhorred by environmentalists -- that would transport oil from Canada to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.
Clinton sidestepped the question, saying: "This is President Obama's decision. If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question."
Dan Merica and Jeff Zeleny (CNN) report Blodgett's reaction to Hillary's response, "I thought she avoided the question completely. Her excuse was she didn't want to step on President Obama while he was still in office. I just thought that was a very weak answer. I just wanted to know where she stands on it one way or another."
Nancy Pelosi infamously argued that the Congress had to first pass ObamaCare to then figure out what ObamaCare would do ("We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it"). Hillary's taking that even further. You have to first vote her president and then, after she's in office, she'll decide where she stands on an issue.
This refusal to press a candidate who goes around repeatedly saying "when I become president" is appalling.
She needs to be asked about Iraq repeatedly.
The Iraq War continues to this day.
She helped kick it off with her 2002 vote and her championing of the illegal war once it started.
She only (semi) turned on it after the public had.
US troops are being sent back into Iraq in a steady drip today. US pilots fly combat missions over Iraq today. The Iraqi government, instead of coming up with a political solution to the country's problems, remains in gridlock.
Exactly how does Hillary plan to address any of this if elected president?
Hillary and her cult -- which includes the Times' Maggie Haberman -- are perfectly happy to take the position that Hillary doesn't have to answer to any of that unless "it's undecided when I become president."
Meanwhile, last week Ben Jacobs (Guardian) reported:
In Iowa on Thursday, in response to a question from the Guardian about whether the White House should take further steps towards arming Kurdish forces fighting Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq, the former Maryland governor and 2016 Democratic candidate said: “Probably, yes.”
The Obama administration has long hesitated over directly arming Kurdish militias in the north of Iraq, for fear of further aggravating sectarian tensions.
[. . .]
Doug Wilson, a top foreign policy adviser to O’Malley, made clear that the candidate “was not unilaterally proposing that we step up additional arms to the Kurds”. Instead, Wilson said, O’Malley would only do so “if it was determined by the US military that it was appropriate to up the arms to the Kurds”.
Where does Hillary stand on that question?
Oh, that's right, Maggie Haberman thinks Hillary said all she needs to via that ghost-written 2014 book.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"