Superdelegates' Choice: Obama Needs To Select Hillary As His Running Mate, Politex

Now that Obama has claimed the nomination on the basis of the supergelegates vote, (Obama needs 9 or 10 votes. Montana has yet to report as I write this; South Dakota [16 votes] has been called for Hillary 55%-44% with 36% of the vote counted.) each day that passes without announcing that he has selected a willing Hillary as his running mate is one more day that weakens his chances to become the new Dictator President of the U.S. (Thanks to Bush, we no longer follow the Magna Charter, the document that our democracy was based on. Hillary alluded to this once or twice; Obama never.) As the NYT reports, Hill wants the VP slot, and "until he deals with the Clinton question, it could be hard for Mr. Obama to move on to what he would like to achieve next: presenting himself to the entire electorate and not just Democrats, laying out his political ideology before Mr. McCain does it on his terms and trying to rectify some of the weaknesses highlighted by the combative primary process."

Frankly, it's doubtful that Obama will select Hill, for a number of reasons, and here are a few: he wants to be seen as his own man, and that won't happen with the Clinton's around; he wants to select a new face to represent the real change that he talks about but has failed to provide; his aids want Hillary's donor base, but not Hillary; his wife is reported to hate Hill; he's frightened of possible gaffes by her husband. Let's face it, Obama is an insider, nearly a Republican-lite. Of course, that's still better than McBush, so, once again, progressives have little choice but to hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two weasels

For a while today, the NYT featured interactive primary maps along demographic lines, showing the states that went for Obama and the states that went for Hill: men, women, blacks, white. Clinton had more women and many more whites. Obama had more men and all of the blacks. We think that Obama should select Hill as his running mate if he expects to beat McBush in November. Given the large number of women (many of whom think Hill was treated badly), Reagan Democrats, and the like who wanted Hillary to win (she claims 18 million), it's a mistake to think the majority of those folks will vote Obama without Hill on the ticket. ["McCain...made an explicit appeal for their support Tuesday night as he tried to increase pressure on Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton would provide Mr. Obama with some of the foreign policy credentials he needs, bring her own bank of contributors, and probably help put more states in play," later writes the NYT.] One reason Gore lost the 2000 election is that he was unable to swallow his pride and allow Bill Clinton to campaign for him in some of the southern states. From what we've seen and heard of Obama, he's more than likely to make the same mistake and not select Hillary as his running mate. So much for change.

Thursday, May 29

Big Bush Lies: NYT Op-Ed Writers: While The Bush Liars Change, His Lies Continue, Dowd, Rich, Collins

Dowd: Bush "authorized Dick Cheney to let Scooter leak part of the top-secret National Intelligence Estimate"

“Yeah, I did,” Mr. Bush told his sap of a press secretary on Air Force One. His tone, the stunned McClellan said, was “as if discussing something no more important than a baseball score.”...

In Washington, it is rarely the geopolitical or human consequences that cause people to turn on leaders behaving immorally. The town is far more narcissistic and practical than that. The people who should be sounding the alarm for democracy’s sake, and the sake of all the young Americans losing lives and limbs, get truly outraged only when they are played for fools and fall guys, when their own reputations are at stake.

It was not the fake casus belli that made Colin Powell’s blood boil. What really got Powell disgusted was that W. and Dick Cheney used him, tapping into his credibility to sell their trumped-up war; that George Tenet failed to help him scrub his U.N. speech of all Cheney’s garbage; and that W. showed him the door so the more malleable Condi could have his job. Tenet was privately worried about a war buildup not backed up by C.I.A. facts, but he only publicly sounded the alarm years later in a lucrative memoir fueled by payback, after Condi and Cheney tried to cast him as the fall guy on W.M.D.

McClellan did not realize the value of a favorite maxim — “The truth shall set you free” — until he was hung out to dry by his bosses in the Valerie Plame affair, repeating the lies Karl Rove and Scooter Libby brazenly told him about not being the leakers....more

Rich: Unaccountable Leaders' Lies That Result In Over A Hundred Thousand Deaths Is "A Crime Story"

...The deceitful origins of the war in Iraq are the major focus of the former press secretary’s tell-all.

There is no news in his book, hardly the first to charge that the White House used propaganda to sell its war and that the so-called liberal media were “complicit enablers” of the con job. The blowback by the last Bush defenders is also déjà vu. The claims that Mr. McClellan was “disgruntled,” “out of the loop,” two-faced, and a “sad” head case are identical to those leveled by Bush operatives (including Mr. McClellan) at past administration deserters like Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, John DiIulio and Matthew Dowd.

So why the fuss? Mr. McClellan isn’t a sizzling TV personality, or, before now, a household name beyond the Beltway. His book secured no major prepublication media send-off on “60 Minutes” or a newsmagazine cover. But if the tale of how the White House ginned up the war is an old story, the big new news is how ferocious a hold this familiar tale still exerts on the public all these years later. We have not moved on.

Americans don’t like being lied to by their leaders, especially if there are casualties involved and especially if there’s no accountability. We view it as a crime story, and we won’t be satisfied until there’s a resolution.....more

Collins: Bush Defenders Discuss Loyality Rather Than War, Death, and Lies

“What Happened,” reveals that the Bush White House put politics ahead of truth and openness with the American people.

I know it’s a shock, but try to be brave.

The administration’s defenders have not really attacked the book’s thesis — really, what could you say? But they’ve been frothing at the mouth over McClellan’s lack of loyalty....

Whoever the next president is, I hope he-she picks incredibly well-qualified people who are strong enough to speak their minds and cynical enough not to assume the chief executive knows what he-she is doing. Loyalty does not tend to be a great virtue in these types, and the goal should be to wring as much accomplishment as possible out of them before the inevitable betrayal....

While the bracing effects of being pushed out of his job have helped McClellan face reality, clarity might have come earlier if he’d just been more canny about personal relationships. His White House career could have been so different if, when Bush started babbling about W.M.D.’s in Iraq, McClellan reminded himself that this was coming from a guy who couldn’t remember what drugs he had ingested.

Even now, McClellan still appears to have trouble with the critical concept that deeds matter more than words.

“Waging an unnecessary war is a grave mistake,” he writes. “But in reflecting on all that happened during the Bush administration, I’ve come to believe that an even more fundamental mistake was made — a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.”

Personally, I’m a huge fan of candor and honesty. But when it comes to fundamental mistakes, I’ll start with the unnecessary war.....more

Thursday, May 29

"Self-Deceived" Bush: Ex-Bush Press Sec. Explains Bush Lies Not Lies, Says Bush Response To Cocaine Use Question "Probably Not True", Ken Herman

Note: Ken Herman, political reporter for the Austin American-Statesman while Bush was Governor of Texas, is now at the Cox News Washington Bureau --Politex

The volume makes McClellan, a Texan picked by the president and paid by the people to help sell the war to the world, the first longtime Bush aide to put such harsh criticism between hard covers. It is an extraordinarily critical book that questions Bush's intellectual curiosity, his candor in leading the nation to war, his pattern of self-deception and the quality of his advisers.

"As a Texas loyalist who followed Bush to Washington with great hope and personal affection and as a proud member of his administration, I was all too ready to give him and his highly experienced foreign policy advisers the benefit of the doubt on Iraq," McClellan wrote. "Unfortunately, subsequent events have showed that our willingness to trust the judgment of Bush and his team was misplaced."

McClellan worked for Bush from 1999, when he signed on as a deputy in the governor's press office, until 2006, when he was forced out as White House press secretary.

"President Bush has always been an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader. He is not one to delve into all the possible policy options — including sitting around engaging in extended debate about them — before making a choice," McClellan wrote. "Rather, he chooses based on his gut and his most deeply held convictions. Such was the case with Iraq."

In an interview Tuesday, McClellan said he retains great admiration and respect for Bush. "My job was to advocate and defend his policies and speak on his behalf," he said. "This is an opportunity for me now to share my own views and perspective on things. There were things we did right and things we did wrong. Unfortunately, much of what went wrong overshadowed the good things we did."

He said the Bush administration fell into the "permanent campaign" mode that can cripple a White House and has tainted much of Washington.

In the book — subtitled "Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception" — McClellan said that Bush's top advisers, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "played right into his thinking, doing little to question it or cause him to pause long enough to fully consider the consequences before moving forward," according to McClellan.

"Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded," he wrote.

In Iraq, McClellan added, Bush saw "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness," something McClellan said Bush has said he believes is only available to wartime presidents.

The president's real motivation for the war, he said, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by Saddam Hussein was needed because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East," McClellan wrote.

"Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path — not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth," he wrote of the effort to convince the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an effort he said used "innuendo and implication" and "intentional ignoring of intelligence to the contrary."

"President Bush managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option," McClellan concluded, noting, "The lack of candor underlying the campaign for war would severely undermine the president's entire second term in office."

Bush's national security advisers failed to "help him fully understand the tinderbox he was opening," McClellan recalled.

"I know the president pretty well. I believe that, if he had been given a crystal ball in which he could have foreseen the costs of war — more than 4,000 American troops killed, 30,000 injured and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead — he would never have made the decision to invade, despite what he might say or feel he has to say publicly today," McClellan wrote.

In a summation, McClellan said the decision to invade Iraq "goes to an important question that critics have raised about the president: Is Bush intellectually incurious or, as some assert, actually stupid?"

"Bush is plenty smart enough to be president," he concluded. "But as I've noted his leadership style is based more on instinct than deep intellectual debate."

McClellan also expresses amazement that Bush seemed flummoxed by a query by NBC's Tim Russert in February 2004 as to whether the invasion of Iraq was "a war of choice or a war of necessity." "It strikes me today as an indication of his lack of inquisitiveness and his detrimental resistance to reflection," McClellan wrote, "something his advisers needed to compensate for better than they did."

McClellan tracks Bush's penchant for self-deception back to an overheard incident on the campaign trail in 1999 when the then-governor was dogged by reports of possible cocaine use in his younger days.

The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest." Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.

"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"

"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?" McClellan wrote. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."

Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."

"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," McClellan wrote. "And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience."

In the years that followed, McClellan "would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment." McClellan likened it to a witness who resorts to "I do not recall."

"Bush, similarly, has a way of falling back on the hazy memory to protect himself from potential political embarrassment," McClellan wrote, adding, "In other words, being evasive is not the same as lying in Bush's mind."

And McClellan linked the tactic to the decision to invade Iraq, a decision based on flawed intelligence.

"It would not be the last time Bush mishandled potential controversy," he said of the cocaine rumors. "But the cases to come would involve the public trust, and the failure to deal with them early, directly and head-on would lead to far greater suspicion and far more destructive partisan warfare," he wrote.

The book also recounts Bush's unwillingness or inability to come up with a mistake he had made when asked by a reporter to do so.

"It became symbolic of a leader unable to acknowledge that he got it wrong, and unwilling to grow in office by learning from his mistake — too stubborn to change and grow," McClellan concluded.

---

Wednesday, May 28

Unbalanced Bush: Long Time Bush Press Secretary Portrays Bush As A Self-Deceived Serial Liar, Politex

We're not at all surprised to learn from the pen of Scott McCellan in his new book, WHAT HAPPENED: INSIDE THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE AND WASHINGTON'S CULTURE OF DECEPTION, that Bush is a liar, "big time," and those around him are, too. We've been saying that since 1998, and we even wrote a book about it: BIG BUSH LIES. We plan to write more about McCellan and his book, but here's what we wrote in 2001:

Listening To Bush Lies Since 1998

Bush lies So often and in so many different ways that I've never had the patience to keep a list of them. However, when I write something and include the generalization that Bush lies, some readers will write in and say, "Oh, yeh? What did he lie about? I don't believe it." What follows, then, is an informal listing of just some of the lies he typically tells, starting from 2/01. Now, of course, we all know that Gore lies, Lott lies, Cheney lies, etc. But the difference between those liars and Bush is the Resident tells us that he is telling the truth when he is lying. Hence, he will tell us what he is going to do, like get his proposed tax cut from the surplus, then try to get his proposed tax cut from military and medicare funds, instead. Or, once he has actually begun a program, tell us lies about how or why the program has begun. Or tell a closed-door Dem meeting something and then swear up and down the next day that he didn't say it. Or saying, "Yes, Mam" and meaning "No, Mam." Or having a spinner say the opposite the next day. Or, or...you get the idea.

Some Bush backers claim he's not a liar, he's just not very bright and doesn't remember things very well. That may be true, but we're sure Bush would not allow such an excuse in his "responsibility era." We're sure Bush would agree that if he's that dumb, he shouldn't be President. Other Bush backers claim that some of his lies are "technically correct" or "tailored to fit the audience," or some such circumlocution. What they're talking about are lies of omission rather than lies of commission. In lies of omission it's what they imply, not what they say. For example, the other evening Bush told Congress and the American people that he was putting a "lock box" on Social Security. Now, it's very clear that Bush wanted us to feel secure in the belief that he was protecting all of our Social Security funds for the future. No question, right? Yet, the very next day when his budget book was released, we learned that Bush told a lie of omission. What he didn't tell Congress and the American people is that he would later take from $.6 to $1 trillion out of that "lock box" to cover his tax cuts. No doubt, Bush lied. He wanted folks to believe something that he knew was not true. Of course, politicians do this all the time. It's second nature. In sum, the thing that really bothers us about Bush's lies is that he is also a hypocrite and pretends he's above lying. As a liar, he reinforces our assumptions about politicians. As a hypocrite, he reinforces our assumptions about his character.

---

---

Note: To find reference information about the words used in today's article(s), hold down the ALT key and click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry. If you don't have an ALT key, highlight the word and click right.

---

To SUBSCRIBE, change your address, or unsubscribe,
go to http://bushwatch.com/mailman/listinfo/bushheadlinenews for Bush Headline News (over 100 selected headlines each day), and/or
http://bushwatch.com/mailman/listinfo/insidebushwatch for Inside Bush Watch (daily ep-eds, etc. that appear on this page).

Attention AOL and Yahoo Mail users.
Please do not use the report spam button to unsubscribe to this newsletter. As you know, we only send our newsletter to people like yourselves who have opted in to receive it, and its easy to remove yourself from our list. There are clear instructions at http://bushwatch.com/mailman/listinfo/bushheadlinenews on how to do so. Just scroll down to the end. Your kind consideration will be very much appreciated.

---

2005: June... July... August... September... October... November... December...
2006: January... February... March... April... May... June... July... August... September... October... November... December...
2007: January... February... March... April... May... June... July... August...
2008:September 07 through April 08... May... June...

---

Bush Wrong On...Taxes, The Deficit, Social Security, Energy, Education, Health Care, Nuclear Policy.

---

NEOCONS | $$$ | RELIGION | SUPREMES | WMD | CIA | TAXES| ECONOMY | GAYS WAR | EGO | LIES | BUSHLEXIA | EMPIRE | BIG BROTHER | AWOL | FAMILY | POLLS

---

SPECIAL REPORTS Bush And The Carlyle Group Bush And The Gravedigger Bush And Bin Laden Money Bush And The Arab-American Bush And Central Asia Oil Bush And The Taliban Drug Trade Bush And Tony Blair's Speech The Bushes And The Bin Ladens

MORE SPECIAL REPORTS Ashcroft Watch Keeping The Presidential Record The Gore-Bush Media Consortium Report Is AOL Censoring Your Information? The Threat Of Domestic Terrorism Airline Security Stories War Poems Patriotism Tools Of Bioterrorism About Us: Bush Watch is a daily political internet magazine based in Austin, Texas, paid for and edited by Politex, a non-affiliated U.S. citizen. Contents, including "Bush Watch" and "Politex," (c) 1998-2007 Politex. The views expressed herein and the views in stories that you are linked to are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Bush Watch. Permission of the author is required for reprinting posted material, and only requests for reprinting a specific item are considered. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. The duration of the working links is not under our control. Bush Watch has not reviewed all of the sites linked to our site and is not responsible for the content of any off-site pages or any other sites linked to our site. Your linking to any other off-site pages or other sites from our site is at your own risk. Send all e-mail to Politex. We reserve the right to post all e-mail messages sent to us, along with the name of the e-mailer. You must specifically request that your e-mail message or your name not be considered for posting, if that's what you desire.