Random Politics & Religion #00

People can click a damn link. It's not hard.

Like I said, I wan't even sure if this warranted a post in P&R.

He and other Republican presidential contenders have a new and bogus spin on how the Iraq War began.

Last week, Jeb Bush stepped in it. It took the all-but-announced Republican presidential candidate several attempts to answer the most obvious question: Knowing what we know now, would you have launched the Iraq War? Yes, I would have, he initially declared, noting he would not dump on his brother for initiating the unpopular war. "So would almost everyone that was confronted with the intelligence they got," Bush said. In a subsequent and quickly offered back-pedaling remark—on his way to saying he would have made "different decisions"—Bush emphasized that a main problem with the Bush-Cheney invasion was "mistakes as it related to faulty intelligence in the lead-up to the war." And as his Republican rivals jumped on Bush, they, too, blamed bad intelligence for causing the war. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), insisting that he would not have favored the war (if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction), commented, "President Bush has said that he regrets that the intelligence was faulty." And former CEO Carly Fiorina noted, "The intelligence was clearly wrong. And so had we known that the intelligence was wrong, no, I would not have gone in."

But here's the truth Jeb Bush and the others are hiding or eliding: George W. Bush, *** Cheney, & Co. were not misled by lousy intelligence; they used lousy intelligence to mislead the public.

Throughout the run-up to the war, Bush, Cheney, and their lieutenants repeatedly stated assertions to justify the war that were not supported by the intel. They also hyped or mischaracterized existing intelligence to bolster their case for war. The book I wrote with Michael Isikoff, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, chronicles the elaborate Bush-Cheney campaign to misuse and misrepresent the intelligence. Certainly, there was some information within the intelligence community (which turned out to be wrong) indicating that Saddam Hussein was trying to revive programs to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. As the Bush White House was selling the possibility of war, the intelligence agencies did quickly produce a National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002 that said Iraq had "continued its weapons of mass destruction program." But there was other intelligence and analysis—some of it mentioned in that intelligence estimate—casting plenty of doubt on this. In fact, on many of the key elements of the Bush administration's case for war, the intelligence was, at best, iffy. Yet in this post-9/11 period, Bush and Cheney frequently declared there was no uncertainty: Saddam was pursuing WMD to threaten the United States, and, worse, he was in league with Al Qaeda.

Here are a few examples of how Bush and Cheney cooked the books:

In an August 2002 speech that kicked off the administration's campaign for war against Iraq, Cheney asserted, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." But earlier in the year, Vice Adm. Thomas Wilson, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, had told Congress that Iraq possessed only "residual" amounts of WMD. There was no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation. As Cheney made this claim, Anthony Zinni, a former commander in chief of US Central Command, was on the stage. He was stunned to hear Cheney say that Iraq was actively pursuing WMD. As he later recalled, "It was a shock. It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program." In other words, bad intelligence did not cause Cheney to make this categorical, bold, and frightening statement. He just did it.

In September 2002, Cheney insisted there was "very clear evidence" Saddam was developing nuclear weapons: Iraq's acquisition of aluminum tubes that were to be used to enrich uranium for bombs. But Cheney and the Bush White House did not tell the public that there was a heated dispute within the intelligence community about this supposed evidence. The top scientific experts in the government had concluded these tubes were not suitable for a nuclear weapons program. But one CIA analyst—who was not a scientific expert—contended the tubes were smoking-gun proof that Saddam was working to produce nuclear weapons. The Bush-Cheney White House embraced this faulty piece of evidence and ignored the more-informed analysis. Bush and Cheney were cherry-picking—choosing bad intelligence over good—and not paying attention to better information that cut the other way.

Cheney repeatedly referred publicly to a report that maintained that 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta had met secretly in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer—even though the CIA and FBI had dismissed this allegation. This is a damning example of Cheney citing discredited intelligence to score points. Intelligence experts had said there was nothing to this tale, but Cheney kept on mentioning the alleged Atta-Iraq connection to suggest Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission later reconfirmed that this report of a Prague meeting was bunk.

The Atta allegation was part of a wider effort mounted by the Bush-Cheney administration to link Saddam to 9/11. In November 2002, Bush said Saddam "is a threat because he's dealing with Al Qaeda." Weeks earlier, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had claimed he had "bullet-proof" evidence that Saddam was tied to Osama bin Laden. In March 2003, Cheney asserted that Saddam had a "long-standing relationship" with Al Qaeda. The intelligence did not show this. As the 9/11 Commission later concluded, there had been no intelligence confirming significant contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Once again, Bush and Cheney were not being fooled by flawed intelligence; they were were pushing disinformation.

At a press conference at the end of 2002, Bush declared, "We don't know whether or not [Saddam] has a nuclear weapon." He clearly was suggesting that Saddam might already possess these dangerous weapons. Yet no intelligence at the time indicated that the Iraqi dictator had by then developed such weapons. The administration also insisted Saddam had been shopping for uranium in Africa, even though the intelligence on this point was dubious.

Bush and Cheney did not invade Iraq because they had been hoodwinked by bad intelligence. They claimed the intelligence was solid—when it wasn't. And they made stuff up. Days before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bush told the American public, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Yet plenty of doubt existed. Intelligence analysts had registered uncertainty regarding all of the significant aspects of Bush's case for war. Moreover, Bush and Cheney had for months tossed out a series of claims that were not supported by any confirmed intelligence.

The Iraq war at its heart was not an intelligence failure. Bush, Cheney, and their comrades were hell-bent on invading Iraq—not because of inaccurate intelligence, but because of their own assumptions and desires. The war did not happen because of bad intel. Consequently, asking whether the invasion should have happened knowing what is now known is an irrelevant exercise. For the Bush-Cheney gang, it truly did not matter what the intelligence said. They were not victims. They were the perps.

As first lady in the final year of the Clinton administration, Hillary Rodham Clinton endorsed a White House plan to give tax breaks to private foundations and wealthy charity donors at the same time the William J. Clinton Foundation was soliciting donations for her husband's presidential library, recently released Clinton-era documents show.

The blurred lines between the tax reductions proposed by the Clinton administration in 2000 and the Clinton Library's fundraising were an early foreshadowing of the potential ethics concerns that have flared around the Clintons' courting of corporate and foreign donors for their family charity before she launched her campaign for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

White House documents in the Clinton Library reviewed by The Associated Press show Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were kept apprised about a tax reduction package that would have benefited donors, including those to his presidential library, by reducing their tax burden. An interagency task force set up by Bill Clinton's executive order proposed those breaks along with deductions to middle-class taxpayers who did not itemize their returns. Federal officials estimated the plan would cost the U.S. government $14 billion in lost tax payments over a decade.

In a January 2000 memo to Hillary Clinton from senior aides, plans for a "philanthropy tax initiative roll-out" showed her scrawled approval, "HRC" and "OK." The document, marked with the archive stamp "HRC handwriting," indicated her endorsement of the tax package, which included provisions to reduce and simplify an excise tax on private foundations' investments and allow more deductions for charitable donations of appreciated property. The Clinton White House pushed the tax plan in its final budget in February 2000, but it did not survive the Republican-led Congress.

"Without your leadership, none of these proposals would have been included in the tax package," three aides wrote to Hillary Clinton in the memo, days before she led a private conference call outlining the plan to private foundation and nonprofit leaders.

Federal law does not prevent fundraising by a presidential library during a president's term. But in directly pushing the legislation while the Clinton Library was aggressively seeking donations, Hillary and Bill Clinton's altruistic support for philanthropy overlapped with their interests promoting their White House years and knitting ties with philanthropic leaders. Hundreds of pages of documents contain no evidence that anyone in the Clinton administration warned anyone about potential ethics concerns or sought to minimize the White House's active role in the legislation.

"The theme here for the Clintons is a characteristic ambiguity of doing good and at the same time doing well by themselves," said Lawrence Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the Hubert H. Humphrey School at the University of Minnesota. Jacobs said the Clinton administration could have relied on a federal commission to decide tax plans or publicly supported changes but not specific legislation.

Spokesmen for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Clinton Foundation declined to comment, deferring to the former president's office.

A spokesman for Bill Clinton's office said his administration was not trying to incentivize giving to the foundation, but instead was spurred by a 1997 presidential humanities committee that urged tax breaks for charities to aid American cultural institutions. Bruce Reed, Bill Clinton's chief domestic policy adviser at the time, also responded Thursday that the former president "wanted to give a break to working people for putting a few more dollars in the plate at the church. Not for any other far-fetched reason." Gene Sperling, former economic adviser to both Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama, added that the tax reduction package was "developed at the Treasury Department, endorsed by experts and designed to encourage all forms of charitable giving."

The tax changes would have indirectly helped the Clinton Foundation — as well as many other U.S. charities — by freeing nonprofits' investments and donations that otherwise would have gone into tax payments. A reduction of the excise tax would have boosted the assets of private foundations. Higher deductions for appreciated investments and property would have also aided the Clinton Foundation, which accepts non-cash gifts. In 2010, for example, the charity declared more than $5 million in donated securities on its federal tax returns.

By the time the Clinton administration introduced its tax package in February 2000, the foundation had already raised $6 million in donations, according to tax disclosures.

Months before proposing the tax breaks, Clinton White House officials began courting leaders from some of the nation's most influential charities in advance of a planned White House conference to celebrate American philanthropy at the turn of the millennium. A September 1999 White House list proposing possible "philanthropy heroes" to highlight at the conference included wealthy donors of "large recent gifts," among them Microsoft's Bill Gates and his wife, Dell computer founder Michael Dell and investors George Soros and Eli Broad.

They all later donated to the Clinton Foundation through their companies or private foundations. There are no indications that White House officials discussed future Clinton Foundation gifts with any nonprofit.

Aides told Hillary Clinton in a September 1999 memo that funding for the event would be absorbed by the Treasury Department and several foundations and donors, among them the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Getty Foundation, AOL and Jill Iscol, a close Hillary Clinton friend and donor later named finance co-chair of the first lady's New York Senate campaign.

Iscol's IF Hummingbird Foundation later donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. The Ford Foundation has donated more than $1 million and the MacArthur Foundation and the Mott Foundation have each donated more than $250,000.

One voice for tax breaks was the actor Paul Newman, who routed the after-tax profits and royalties from his Newman's Own food products to charity. An October 1999 Treasury memo to Clinton aides recounts a 1998 meeting between Newman and then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin in which the actor lobbied for "increasing the limits on charitable deductions for corporations and individuals."

Not that it matters, but how do you draw "testiness" from what I said?

People can click a damn link. It's not hard.

Not that it matters, but how do you draw "testiness" from what I said?

A phone call between a taxpayer and an Internal Revenue Service collection employee was broadcast on Howard Stern’s Sirius XM radio show when the IRS employee accidentally put himself on hold after calling into Stern’s show.

The shock jock, known as the “King of All Media,” kept trying to get the attention of the IRS employee, identified only as “Jimmy” in Long Island, but he continued talking with the taxpayer about her payments, as Kelly Phillips Erb of Forbes reported.

The phone number of the unidentified taxpayer, from Cape Cod, Mass., was even broadcast over the air, and she told a CBS news program in Boston that listeners around the country quickly began calling and texting her while the conversation was being aired. She is worried about her tax debts being disclosed so publicly and said she has felt devastated and violated by the situation. “No one should go through something like this,” she said.

She asked the IRS employee if he was talking with Stern, and he admitted that he had been on hold with the call-in show.

During the call, Stern and his sidekick, Robin Quivers, joked about the IRS employee’s advice to the taxpayer on her payment plan. “I’m learning so much,” said Stern. “I feel like I’m in math class and I’m flunking because I don’t know one thing he’s saying. I think I’m going to bail on this guy. By the way, this is the most boring job ever. I’d rather live in my parent’s basement if I had to do that. I’d give out all the wrong information. All right, dude, later!”

An IRS spokesperson told the CBS Boston station, “We are aware of this troubling situation, and we are currently reviewing the matter. The IRS takes the confidentiality of taxpayer information very seriously, and we have high standards that we expect and require employees to follow.”

At least 20% of Americans are gay says....more than half of Americans?

Wow! Anyone wanna throw their $.02 in on why we think we're surrounded by gay people?

Who the hell cares Nausi?

Seriously. People are gay, good for them.

If they hit on me, I will politely tell them that I'm not interested. They continue to hit on me, I will politely tell them to go *** themselves, since they didn't get the message the first time.

But why would it matter if a different human being is gay or not to you?

Why did you infer I had some sort of chip on my shoulder?

I think he's more concerned about the public perception of the prevalence of it. I just find obvious failures in estimation interesting on any topic.

At least 20% of Americans are gay says....more than half of Americans?

Wow! Anyone wanna throw their $.02 in on why we think we're surrounded by gay people?

The largest credible number I've seen was around 2% identified as gay, with another 1-2% identifying as bi-curious/bi-sexual/other.

That's also a problem with polling, people's opinion is not only an unreliable metric, it's an irrelevant one.

Well the actual number according to gallup of people who self id as LGBT is ~3.8%.

Men and women of all races should be treated as equals regardless of sexual orientation, religion and lack there-of.

The differences between Liberals and Conservatives are opinion and perspective.

"Irregardless" is a stupid word as it means the same thing as "regardless," the ir- prefix adds absolutely nothing but stupidity to whatever sentence it is being used in.