AL Franken talks to Ed Klien ...... It didnt go well for Ed

[Spider]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506240007
Man it was rough , I listened to the Audio , granted it was ganging up , but Ed should have had more sense then write a book like he did .... Not to mention Ed Kliens publisher lied to Klien about Joe Conason being there .. I guess Ed got a taste of what Ambushing is all about from his own Publisher ......

[Hogan11]

Al Franken is the Man, no question about it.

[Spider]

what was funny was Ed Kliens claims about the FBI list , When Klien admited he didnt read the Names and this was real damming
FRANKEN: Melanie Vermeer.

CONASON: Verveer.

KLEIN: Verveer.

FRANKEN: Yeah.

CONASON: Who is Melanie Verveer?

KLEIN: She was her chief of staff for a while.

FRANKEN: Yeah. You know what?

CONASON: There is no person named Melanie Verveer. There's Melanne Verveer, who you refer to as "mannish looking," which she's not. But her name is Melanne, M-E-L-A-N-N-E.

FRANKEN: Now, I know Melanne.

CONASON: Now, since you don't know the first name of her chief of staff, why should anybody think that you know anything at all about Hillary Clinton?

FRANKEN: Well, I want to go to --

LANPHER: It's not -Please --

FRANKEN: Oh, let him, let him, let him.

LANPHER: Please, let him respond!

KLEIN: I don't think the question is worth my responding.

CONASON: Because you don't know, right?

KLEIN: Not -- no.

CONASON: You don't know, you didn't know her real name.

KLEIN: She was referred to as "Melanie" to me many, many times, and --

CONASON: By who? [laughing]

LANPHER: Really?

KLEIN: I think that's how --

CONASON: No one calls her "Melanie."

KLEIN: Well, I think that's how a lot of people referred to her.

CONASON: Nobody refers -- nobody calls her that.

FRANKEN: Now I know Melanne. I know her husband, and I have to take offense on calling her mannish, 'cause I know Melanne, and she's -- ah, I think she's a good-lookin' woman. And like, let's say, Ed, someone referred to your wife in a book as "simian," say. You know. Would you -- which, by the way, I doubt your wife is simian looking. I'm sure that she's very beautiful, because you're a very manly looking man. You're very heterosexual looking, I must say, in the back of the book. You look like you're in really good shape. So...

CONASON: I have this feeling that he's never seen Melanne Verveer, whose name he doesn't know. Have you ever seen her?

KLEIN: Ah, no, I have not.

CONASON: But she's mannish-looking to you? Even though you've never seen her?

KLEIN: She has been described to me that way, yes.

CONASON: She's been ... Who described her to you that way?

KLEIN: Several people who worked -- knew her,

FRANKEN: Who knew her as "Melanie"?

KLEIN: Yes, and who called her "Melanie" to me.

CONASON: Well, maybe they knew someone else. This could all just be a -- another case of terrible reporting or mistaken identity.

FRANKEN: There is a Melanie. There is a Melanie who is -- used to be a male, and is a tennis player, you know, a professional tennis player.

[Spider]

What Bothered me the most about that exchange is , Her Name is Melanne and if she is Manish looking , then Melanie doesnt fit , Melman , would be more along the lines ....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Franken is a right-wing propagandist's worst nightmare.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[Montaq]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

What Bothered me the most about that exchange is , Her Name is Melanne and if she is Manish looking , then Melanie doesnt fit , Melman , would be more along the lines ....

I was listening and Conosan really put it to Klein. He got Klein to admit that he didn't interview anyone and got all his info from other right-wing books that had already been written.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Montaq

I was listening and Conosan really put it to Klein. He got Klein to admit that he didn't interview anyone and got all his info from other right-wing books that had already been written.

Klein never even read the names on the FBI files , but yet claimed Hillary used them against Repubs ............. I was just shaking my head

[W*GS]

O lucky woman!
Jun 23rd 2005 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

"The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President" By Edward Klein

There is only one thing more useful in politics than having the right friends, and that is having the right enemies. Mrs Clinton has long owed a big debt to her critics on the deranged right, and, with this week's publication of Edward Klein's “The Truth About Hillary”, it is clear that her luck still holds.

There are lots of reasons to distrust or even dislike Mrs Clinton. She exudes an overpowering whiff of entitlement. She seems to believe that successful career women like herself are morally superior to women who stay at home and bake cookies. She was responsible, with Hillarycare, for one of the greatest political debacles of recent years. And, most infuriating of all, she tries to play both the victim and the strong woman. But Mr Klein has succeeded in doing the near impossible: he has written a book that will make all but fire-breathing conservatives sympathetic to her cause.

Mr Klein relies on much the same methods as Michael Moore—mixing well-known facts with wild innuendo. The best that can be said for him is that he is a zealous muck-raker. He hoovers up anything and everything that might reinforce his claim that Mrs Clinton is willing to lie, bully, cheat and manipulate people in her quest for power, including the fact that, as an adolescent, she nurtured a fierce ambition to become an astronaut.

The book is at its most repugnant when it comes to the question of sex. Mr Klein repeatedly hints that the former first lady has a taste for the Sapphic arts. Wasn't she at Wellesley, where, we are informed, lesbianism is strikingly common? And aren't many of her closest friends and aides lesbians? In the book's most bizarre passage, he even suggests that the Clintons' daughter, Chelsea, was the product of a marital rape.

Mr Klein should be ashamed of himself for sinking to such depths. And Mrs Clinton can sail on to the Democratic primary confident that this book will not do her the least bit of harm.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[Spider]

I tip my hat to you W*GS , I know how you feel about the Clintons , and you saw through the Bullshít .........
I dont know how others feel , but that takes balls . Props

[W*GS]

Bill Clinton
American idol
Jun 23rd 2005
From The Economist print edition

"The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House", By John F. Harris

Whatever else Bill Clinton deserves—and many Americans still argue about that—a better literary legacy is long overdue. So far his presidency has received a lousy treatment from three different sorts of writers: first, crude hatchet jobs by what his wife called the vast right-wing conspiracy; second, absurdly pro-Clinton apologies from loyalists who blame conservatives for everything; and lastly a chaotic meandering “diary dump” from the man himself (now available in paperback at 1,056 pages).

So what a relief to welcome John Harris's “The Survivor”, the definitive account so far of the Clinton White House. Mr Harris, a Washington Post correspondent, decides in the end that Mr Clinton was basically a good thing. But on the way, he calmly delivers more than enough ammunition for Clinton haters to feast upon. Entries in the index under Bill Clinton include “sexual excess of”, “angry outbursts of” and “deceptiveness seen in”.

At times Mr Clinton's flaws are excruciating. Mr Harris begins with the announcement of his candidacy for president in Little Rock. “A lifetime of preparation had culminated in the usual fashion for Clinton: in a swirling cloud of last-minute chaos and indecision.” Many of his closest advisers did not really know what he believed in or what skeletons lay in his closet. Much later, when his lawyer tells him that one Monica Lewinsky is on a witness list, the president asks incredulously, “Do you think I'm ****ing crazy?” implying that he had “retired” from such activities, even though he had been stroking her hair in his office only hours before.

Yet there is also much to sympathise with, including the peerless politician, capable of making lines like “I feel your pain” sound genuine, largely because, for that instant, they were. An idealist of sorts emerges, intrigued by lofty ideas and utterly convinced that he can make America a better place. And there is the survivor, who never gave up. “I'm the little rubber clown you had as a kid. The harder you hit me, the faster I come back.”

These traits did not always work in his favour. Once in office, his uncanny ability to narrow the gap between leader and voters served him less well: the press corps got fed up with his all-too-human vengefulness, and the right loathed him and his wife for getting away with it. “You know, he eats too much, he loves sports too much, he talks too much,” one adviser explains. “He is not remote in the way that other presidents have been so you are more free to love him or hate him the way you would anyone.”

Mr Harris's main defence of Mr Clinton is that he did the right thing in the end. That is not to deny that he made some big mistakes—the health-care fiasco for one. Nor is it to deny that he drove people mad with his vacillations. But he was a much more conscientious president than his personal life implied. He chose good people, notably Al Gore (who emerges well from this account) and the treasury team. And he learnt from his mistakes.

A complex man himself, Mr Clinton worked hard at complex decisions. After agonising for months, Mr Clinton eventually decided to concentrate his economic policy on reducing the deficit, even though he had promised a spending splurge in the campaign. He eventually agreed to welfare reform, although it was a Republican idea. And in the end he intervened successfully in the Balkans, although the polls told him not to do so.

Will this make Mr Clinton less loathed? Probably not. But it provides the best explanation of how this infuriating man led America fairly shrewdly for eight years.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Gee, all of the repigs' smear campaigns seem to be backfiring on them nowadays.

W*GS must be frustrated.

9-11 families outraged by Rove's comment

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506240004

In reports on the most recent controversial remarks by deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove, several media outlets have characterized the outrage over the remarks as coming solely from Democrats, when in fact a nonpartisan group of 9-11 families also strongly condemned the comments.

During a June 22 speech before the New York Conservative Party, Rove stated: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

In response to Rove's comments, Families of September 11 issued a statement that called the comments "divisive," "offensive" and "not welcome":

As families whose relatives were victims of the 9/11 terror attacks, we believe it is an outrage that any Democrat, any Republican, any conservative or any liberal, stakes a "high ground" position based upon the September 11th death and destruction. Doing so assumes that all those who died and their loved ones would agree. In truth, some would and some would not. By definition the conduct is divisive and, because it is intended to be self-serving and politicizes 9/11, it is offensive.

We are calling on Karl Rove to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others. His comments are not welcome.

However, only a handful of reports mentioned the Families of September 11 condemnation of Rove's comments, including The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Knight Ridder Newspapers, while most reports cited only Democrats denouncing the comments.

The Journal-Constitution reported on June 24:

Relatives of 9/11 victims posted a statement on their Families of Sept. 11 Web site saying Rove's statements were "not welcome" and his conduct "divisive and ... offensive." They urged Rove "to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortunes of others."

Also on June 24, Knight Ridder reported:

A group of families whose relatives died on Sept. 11 issued a statement condemning the politicization of the tragedy. "We are calling on Karl Rove to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others. His comments are not welcome," their statement said.

By contrast, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times never mentioned the Families of September 11 opposition in their June 24 coverage of Rove's remarks. Among TV outlets, June 23 reports on ABC's World News Tonight, NBC's Nightly News, CNN's Inside Politics, and Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume also failed to mention the group; the CBS Evening News did not report on Rove's comments at all.

Right-wingers ought to be ASHAMED of their attempts to exploit these victims! Especially in light of THIS, which is proof positive that their approach is a MISERABLE FAILURE:

http://www.americanprogressaction.or...JcP7H&b=700005

Whenever the president's domestic agenda hits rock bottom--like clockwork--right-wingers trot out the 9/11 card to distract people from wildly unpopular policy decisions. On Wednesday, the president's chief political architect, Karl Rove, claimed: "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." We'll never know his exact motives, but perhaps the president's self-described "Turd Blossom" was projecting the administration's own need for counseling to make up for its complete lack of success in fighting terrorism.

* 1,382 days after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still at large and al Qaeda is regrouping. More than three-and-a-half years ago Bush vowed to capture terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive." He's failed. The administration wants you to think it is hot on his tracks, however. CIA director Porter Goss said he had "an excellent idea" where Bin Laden is hiding. Vice President Cheney said he had "a pretty good idea of a general area that he's in." With all the bluster, you'd think they could close the deal.

* 1,382 days after 9/11, terrorist attacks are at an all time high. By quantitative measures, the Bush administration's approach to combating terrorism is an abject failure. Last year "[t]he number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled," according to the Washington Post . State Department data shows that "attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003." How did the administration respond? By halting the publication of the State Department report.

* 1,382 days after 9/11, the Iraq war--a complete diversion from the fight against al Qaeda--has produced more terrorism not less. According to the CIA, "[t]he war in Iraq is creating a training and recruitment ground for a new generation of 'professionalized' Islamic terrorists." An in-house CIA think tank concluded that in the poorly planned aftermath of the invasion, "hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders." There is a serious risk that Iraq is now "creating newly radicalized and experienced jihadis who return home to cause trouble in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere."