Implausible deniability

Hillary Clinton admitted yesterday that her claim, in a major prepared foreign policy speech last week, that "I remember landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia in 1996 and "we ran with our heads down" to avoid being hit, was false. She says it was a "misstatement," that she inadvertently "misspoke," and that this whole issue is a "minor blip."

Remember, this "misstatement" by Clinton was not an off-the-cuff, throwaway remark. It was in the prepared text of a major speech, and it formed part of a broader argument that Hillary has meaningful foreign-policy experience from her days as first lady. Politico has more, including video of the CBS News report that debunked Hillary's statement and spurred her to correct it:

On an almost-related note, Josh Marshall weighs in, again, on the Clinton campaign's ongoing "fog of nonsense":

Spin is one thing. And it's not a bad thing. But to have utility it must be tethered to some relevant facts, some kind of reality. Otherwise it just descends into ridiculousness. There's always some new clever but inane argument to twist 'up' into something at least somewhat resembling 'down'. Or if not that, enough to keep your head spinning long enough not to notice for a while that 2 and 2 still equals 4.

And finally, on an entirely unrelated note, a goofy picture of President Bush and the Easter Bunny, courtesy of NRO and Drudge:

NRO readers suggested some captions, but I don't think any of them are terribly good. I think Irish Trojan readers can do better. Suggestions?

Comments

[Angrier and Angrier]

Bush Quote: Thank God Harvey still understands.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Regarding Hillary, it wasn't a "misstatement." It was a lie.

I want to know if there is a reporter out there with the balls to ask her if she was EVER under sniper fire anywhere? If she tries to equivocate, the follow-up question should be, "President Bush's approval ratings have been at near record lows because the American people don't believe he has been straight-forward with them. Aren't you basically doing the same thing President Bush has been doing?"

[Leanna Loomer]

Bush Caption: The president is on the left.

[4-7]

I knew you were real, I just knew it.

[David K.]

4-7 wins!

[Angrier and Angrier]

Drudge Report: Breaking News

Jumping to Conclusions? The Clinton campaign released this photo of President Bush with Flopsy Rabbit, taken recently at the White House.

Flopsy is the sister of Peter Rabbit, who was pardoned by President Bush in 2006. Mr. Rabbit was convicted in 2003 on indecent exposure charges following a burglary attempt near Mr. McGregor's garden.

"Can you say quid pro quo?" Mr. McGregor said in a statement issued to the press.

It should be noted that Mr. McGregor is a lead fund-raiser for Barack Obama.

When asked to comment on the allegation, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino dismissed the accusation with the offhand remark, "Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids."

[David K.]

I think if this is a situation where she mistook one incident for another similar incident it could be overlooked. If she's never actually been in situation like that however, I think its worth considering when it comes to whether or not she is honest.

[Angrier and Angrier]

David K-

I guarantee you the incident she described never happened. If the air field was under sniper attack, do you seriously believe the military would land the jet with the First Lady at that air strip? It would never happen in a million years.

[David K.]

I didn't say I believed it actually happened, i just said IF its a situation like that :)

[CD]

Caption:

Nancy Pelosi called the prospect of military victory "about as realistic as a hug from the easter bunny", to which bush responded (and provided photographic evidence), "hey, i hugged that bunny earlier to today, so back off!"

Hm. Curious to see so little treatment of the Obama snafus (and those of his surrogates) that have been abundant of late... or of McCain's as well. I'll just assume that you realize you have a personal ax to grind... or that you are on some anti-hillary listserv that alerts you every time she fumbles and you just aren't paying attention to the other candidates?

[David K.]

CD, the actions of the candidate are far more newsworthy and noteworthy than the actions of someone who says they support the candidate but don't serve with them in any official capacity.

[Brendan Loy]

CD, I take it you missed my "Obama's unforced error" post?

There were also two posts about Obama's speech on race, in which admittedly I didn't say much of anything negative about Obama, but I did create a forum for people to discuss the "snafus" in question (which they most certainly did, very harshly in some instances). And then there was my "Geraldine Ferraro is right... sort of" post.

But the real answer to the question, "Why aren't you covering these abundant political 'snafus' very heavily?" is... basketball. I'm obsessed with it, and haven't been covering much of anything political in recent days. Today is something of an "off-day," and I happened to be home from work for a few hours this morning, so I had time to blog about this latest Hillary thing. But it's hardly part of some vast Irish Trojan conspiracy to suppress all anti-Obama and anti-McCain news while trumpeting anti-Hillary news from the hilltops.

[Joe Mama]

The actions of the candidate are indeed newsworthy and noteworthy, which is why Obama is having problems. Jeremiah Wright didn't just pop up out of a hat, spout some crazy nonsense, and then endorse Obama. If that were the case, this wouldn't be a big deal. Obama sought this guy out to be his spiritual advisor for 20 years and gave a boatload of dough to his church. The relationship between Obama and Wright has no parallel with any other presidential candidate in the race.

[megan d]

BUSH caption: I did not have sexual relations with this rabbit!

[David K.]

Hmm, which is worse, belonging to a church and not experiencing a few instances of distasteful speech by the pastor (which have been taken out of context unfairly) and once discovering this distancing themself and repudiating the comments OR seeking out and acknowledging the endorsement of a religious leader who is a known bigot towards Catholics, Jews and Muslims. Your right Joe Mama, there is no parallel, McCain's choice is much much worse.

[yea]

boooooo gotcha politics.

[CD]

First... the McCarthy-gate incidents have indeed been out of the mouths of supporters... one of which made the comments while standing right next to Obama on the stage (for the second time, so it wasn't that Obama didn't know they were coming). Yes, we have seen time and again that the candidates are expected to react to ridiculous comments/actions of those that publicly support them. It is important.

McCain's snafu in accusing Iran of supporting/supplying Al Qaeda... such that even Lieberman felt the need to correct him on this spot and in public... that was important.

Rezco... Wright... very important.

And David you are wrong to characterize Obama's relationship with Wright as 'belonging to a church'. He himself calls Wright 'family'. Wright married him, baptized his children, advises his campaign, and indeed served as the inspiration for the title of his own book. Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama is comparable to Hagee's endorsement of McCain. Wright is not comparable... this isn't just an endorsement... it is a close, familial, spiritual and political alliance.

You are also very off base to characterize Wright's statements as being 'taken out of context'. This is ridiculous. Did we as liberals accept the Southern argument that the confederate flag is not a racist but a cultural symbol? Would we accept videos of a southern white preacher making racist and paranoid statements as 'being out of context', and 'representing a cultural difference in communication and historic use of the church as a safe space to communicate fears and frustrations'? I think not. We'd make a lot more progress on race relations if white liberals would stop acting the apologist. There is no excuse for the positions Wright preaches(!) to his congregants.

Wright is a loon. Obama used him (just as other politicians have done) to gain street cred in the black community in Chicago as he was running for office, and in the meantime became very close to him personally. Well, he is in a different ball game now and the guy is dead weight. It is amateur hour that he didn't cut him out sooner, and double amateur hour that he refuses to do so now. I already felt he would lose to McCain in November if he got the nomination, and I'll say that this issue just about seals the deal for him. Picture the ads now...

This is a BIG DEAL and will NOT go away for him. It is hurting him amongst Democrats so imagine how those independants or centrist republicans that may have been considering him feel.

Brendan, for the basketball distracting you... all well and good. All the more reason it feels as though taking the time to post about this latest Clinton fumble feels more like an ax to grind, when it is so very insignificant compared to mistakes that the actual two front-runners have made recently!

[Bob]

President Bush greets the first Ambassador from Easter Island.

[Joe Mama]

distasteful speech by the pastor (which have been taken out of context unfairly)

David, explain, in detail, the fair and proper context of Wright's remarks, starting with the one where he said AIDS was created by the federal gov't for the explicit purpose of killing millions of its own (black) citizens. Thanks.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Bob's headline made me chuckle.

[David K.]

Joe Mama, read the whole sermon to get the full context, I never said it would clear him of all criticism, some of what he said, as I have stated above is inexcusable, however it would be fair to listen to the WHOLE sermon when giving criticism.

I would also like you to explain why its ok for McCain to associate with a known bigot, but not ok for Obama to have associated with someone whom he didn't, atleast so far as anyone can prove, express these views in his presence.

[Jomo]

Obama is starting to fade. Check out the latest Rasmussen polls showing Clinton actually ahead. Now I understand that the likely scenario will be Obama getting the Dem nod, but Obama's "magic" is starting to wear off and people will only continue to see more of his past and politics as the months go by. As much as it pains me to say it, Mrs. Mean Pants has the better shot and winning the Oval Office than Obama.

[David K.]

You are also very off base to characterize Wright's statements as being 'taken out of context'. This is ridiculous.

As I pointed out to Joe Mama, a fair criticism of the remarks would be undertaken after reading the whole sermon, I'm again, not claiming it will exonerate him, but i'm also not willing to ignore that there is more to this than has been presented by Fox News if 15 second clips.

As for him being more than a member of the church, again, unless you can demonstrate that this was not only a pattern of behavior at the church and for this minister but that Obama was aware of it and chose to do nothing, then I think this is not as large an issue as its being made out to be by some, especially the hypocritical right wing who has looked the other way for the current administration and their current candidates associations with distasteful and bigotted religious leaders.

[CD]

David, you are again trying to compare non-comparables. First of all, McCain has never associated with Hagee or any of the other christian crazy zealots on the right. He has in fact criticized them in the past. The only charge that can be made is that his *campaign* encouraged the endorsement behind the scenes and then McCain distanced himself from it, but not strongly enough. He does not associate with nor does he participate in the 'churches' that these men lead.

Obama has known about Wright for years. It turns out that, by his own admission, he was present for various sermons and statements that Wright is being criticized for... and are you seriously going to tell me that you can know a man personally, politically and spiritually for 17 years and not know that he is a proponent of Black Liberation Theology. If so, than Obama is far denser than I give him credit for. People on the right have been flapping about Wright for a long time, these YouTube videos are what inflamed the current 'crisis', but it is not new and Obama has been asked about it in the past (again, making it clear that he has known about this issue). He had previously dismissed the questions, saying that Wright was like the old uncle that you love dearly but says crazy stuff every now and again.

Seriously, you are not helping his case by being an apologist. There is no politically correct or expedient thing to do but to cut ties with this man. No amount of verbal machinations change this reality. The facts are that Obama was aware of it and did nothing. He is aware of it and isn't really doing anything but trying to divert the issue.

[Joe Mama]

No one asked you to exonerate or clear Wright of all criticism, David. You were asked to explain your unequivocal statement that his remarks have been taken unfairly out of context. Your response was that we need to read the whole sermon to get the proper context, but you can't or won't say what in the rest of the sermon puts Wright's remarks in the proper context, which you are so sure were taken unfairly out of context. One can only assume that you yourself haven't even read that which you implore others to read, otherwise you would answer the question instead of desperately trying to change the subject to McCain's endorsement from the pastor of a church he isn't a member of and didn't contribute 5-digit figures to, whom McCain did not seek out as his spiritual advisor for the past 20 years, and who did not marry Mccain and his wife, baptize his children, or give McCain the title for his book.

[David K.]

CD, this video clearly shows McCain welcoming Haggee's endorsement:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5361520710526810473

Here's more about it, the two appearing on stage together:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/27/hagee_endorses_mccain_1.html

Again, are you (and Joe Mama) sayign its ok to welcome and seek the endorsement of a bigot, just not ok to have known one, even if you weren't aware of his views?

I'm willing to be convinced that there is more going on here than Pastor Wright making a few distasteful and wrong comments, but so far the only evidence i have seen are a couple of isolated incidents where he went way overboard. What he said was definitely wrong, even when moderated by understanding the context in which he made some of the statements, but that doesn't prove that this was a pattern of behavior or that Obama knew about it. Show me evidence to that effect and I'll look at it, but i'm not going to stop believing that of the three Obama is the best presidential candidate by a long shot, especially in light of the actions of the otehr two candidates.

[Alasdair]

David

If Senator Obama, over a 20 year period of having Pastor Wright as "family" didn't get Wright's political views, then we cannot afford to have Obama as President ... and Obama can't even claim Alzheimer's ...

And, of course, as the WSJ Online points out, Senator Clinton is claiming that she was "sleep-deprived" when she "misspoke" about being under sniper fire ...

"Clinton said she was "sleep-deprived" and "misspoke" when she said last week that she landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996, when she was first lady.
" ...

As the WSJ Online says - if she mis-spoke just because she was sleep-deprived, we can hardly want her answering the phone at 3 AM, now, can we ?

[Jay Johnson]

Caption:

"I've missed drinking so much."

[CD]

McCain has since repudiated Hagee's remarks and distanced himself from the endorsement. Not distanced himself far enough of course (Hagee is a friggin' Nut Job), which is one among many reasons I won't be voting for McCain.

When McCain calls Hagee his spirtual mentor, when McCain sits in Hagee's 'church' even once (much less for over 15 years), and, most importantly, when McCain gives Hagee a role in his campaign... then you come back and make your case. For now, as I stated earlier, the comparable situation to Hagee is Farrakhan... a controversial endorsement from someone that neither man was particularly close to, but for political reasons, didn't repudiate as strongly as some would hope.

The Wright situation is an entirely different animal. That you can't see that speaks to your blindness, and it doesn't help your candidate. If Obama is the Dem nominee I'll be voting for him in November anyway... although it will be the biggest plug my nose vote I've ever sent in.

[David K.]

Alasdair, you once again bring nothing to the discussion. Before you can make that complaint about Wright's personal views you have to demonstrate that they were NOT isolated incidents.

CD, sorry but that doesn't fly, Hagee made those well publicized, well known remark's long before McCain sought and praised his endorsement, he can attempt to distance himself now, but unlike Obama who may very well NOT have known what this man Wright said on those , what, two occasions? How could McCain not have known what was well known public knowledge about Haggee when he sought his endorsement. No the real story here is how much the Obama situation is being overplayed, while the right wing conveniently overlooked the religious associations of the current administration and McCain. Of the two situations McCain's is worse, he should have known better. Unless you can demonstrate that Obama had reason to know this about Wright, then the situation isn't nearly as bad.

This is why no one takes David K. seriously.

[CD]

David,

Of course everyone, McCain included, knew Hagee was a nut job. When it became clear that McCain wasn't going to get a pass on the endorsement, he backpeddaled and distanced himself from Hagee, repudiating the remarks. Because he knows that this is the politcally expedient and, in fact, necessary thing to do. Again, Obama is in an even worse position because this is not just some endorsement from a crackpot leader of a politically powerful group whose votes are courted, this is a spiritual mentor and long-time friend... I have yet to even see you acknowledge that the relationships are not even comparable. In fact you keep insisting that McCain/Hagee is worse, which is so delusional I don't know where to begin. It is as though you are confusing Wright with Farrakhan, which is a more comparable situation to Hagee.

Wright/Obama is a totally different situation! I think we can all understand the political motivation of sorta wanting the endorsement of someone like Farrakhan or Hagee, but we have a much harder time figuring out how someone is a close friend (indeed, like family according to Obama) to someone for over 20 years yet can maintain that they had no idea this was the case, and even after knowing this was the case, refuse to repudiate the man.

You continue to be willfully ignorant on this issue of what Obama knew and when. You are trying to paint him as a very ignorant/blind man, which I don't think the evidence has shown him to be. Here is an abcnews article that will link you to a couple of stories that will show you why there is evidence that this has been a known issue by Obama and others for quite some time...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/just-what-did-o.html

Just What Did Obama Know About Wright's Past Sermons?
March 15, 2008 6:15 PM

In his Friday night cable mea culpas on the incendiary comments made by his spiritual adviser Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., repeatedly said, "I wasn't in church during the time that these statement were made. I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally. Either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew, he always preached the social gospel. ... If I had heard them repeated, I would have quit. ... If I thought that was the repeated tenor of the church, then I wouldn’t feel comfortable there."

Obama told CNN that he "didn't know about all these statements. I knew about one or two of these statements that had been made. One or two statements would not lead me to distance myself from either my church or my pastor. ... If I had thought that was the tenor or tone on an ongoing basis, then yes, I don't think it would have been reflective of my values."

But according to a New York Times story from a year ago, the Obama campaign dis-invited Wright from delivering a public invocation at Obama's candidacy announcement.

“Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack,” Wright told the Times. “One of his members had talked him into uninviting me."

In a phone call with Wright, Obama cited a Rolling Stone story, “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama," (the name of which has curiously been changed on the RS website) and told him, according to Wright, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”

That story included the following passage: "The Trinity United Church of Christ, the church that Barack Obama attends in Chicago, is at once vast and unprepossessing, a big structure a couple of blocks from the projects, in the long open sore of a ghetto on the city's far South Side. The church is a leftover vision from the Sixties of what a black nationalist future might look like. There's the testifying fervor of the black church, the Afrocentric Bible readings, even the odd dashiki. And there is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a sprawling, profane bear of a preacher, a kind of black ministerial institution, with his own radio shows and guest preaching gigs across the country. Wright takes the pulpit here one Sunday and solemnly, sonorously declares that he will recite 10 essential facts about the United States. 'Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college,' he intones. 'Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!' There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. 'We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. ... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. ... We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. ... We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!" The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: 'And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS S***!'"

This was more than a year ago.

So ... what did Obama know then and what did he just all of a sudden learn?

- jpt

[Joe Mama]

You're doing God's work, CD.

[David K.]

Ah the dumbass anonymous strikes again. While three of us are having a civil and productive debate, you are snarking on the sidelines adding nothing constructive.

[David K.]

CD, thanks for the link, i'll definitely be reading it, thats all I was asking for, more than just a few news bites of a couple sermons from YouTube. It's nice to finally have someone who can and will engage in civil and reasoned debate around here about political issues.

[Alasdair]

Talking of "Implausible deniability", so where do we think Bill and Michelle are right now ?

In adjoining padded rubber rooms, being kept away from the Press ?

[CD]

As an addendum, Rolling Stone did indeed change the title of their article from "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" to "Destiny's Child". I have the originally titled article at home, and you can see the original title as it is embedded in the page address of the online article (which you wouldn't want to change because it would screw up every link or bookmark that had been made). Very questionable move. Not that I would hold up RS to high journalistic standards or anything.

[Mike]

Dubya: Not only a member of the Neo-Con cabal, but a supporter of the Hare Club for Men.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Caption:

Laura Bush, pictured her with President Bush, demonstrates the unfortunate side effects of stem cell research.