WASHINGTON – The Barack Obama administration is refusing to acknowledge an offer by the leadership of the Taliban in early December to give “legal guarantees” that they will not allow Afghanistan to be used for attacks on other countries.

The administration’s silence on the offer, despite a public statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing skepticism about any Taliban offer to separate itself from al-Qaeda, effectively leaves the door open to negotiating a deal with the Taliban based on such a proposal.

The Taliban, however, have chosen to interpret the Obama administration’s position as one of rejection of their offer.

The Taliban offer, included in a statement dated December 4 and e-mailed to news organizations the following day, said the organization had “no agenda of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and is ready to give legal guarantees if foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan”.

The statement did not mention al-Qaeda by name or elaborate on what was meant by “legal guarantees” against such “meddling”, but it was an obvious response to past US insistence that the US war in Afghanistan is necessary to prevent al-Qaeda from having a safe haven in Afghanistan once again.

It suggested that the Taliban were interested in negotiating an agreement with the United States involving a public Taliban renunciation of ties with al-Qaeda, along with some undefined arrangements to enforce a ban on al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan in return for a commitment to a timetable for withdrawal of foreign troops from the country.

Despite repeated queries by Inter Press Service to the Department of State spokesman, P. J. Crowley, and to the National Security Council’s press office over the past week about whether either Clinton or Obama had been informed about the Taliban offer, neither office has responded to the question.

Anand Gopal of The Wall Street Journal, whose December 5 story on the Taliban message was the only one to report that initiative, asked a US official earlier that day about the offer to provide “legal guarantees”.

The official, who had not been aware of the Taliban offer, responded with what was evidently previously prepared policy guidance casting doubt on the willingness of the Taliban to give up its ties with al-Qaeda. “This is the same group that refused to give up bin Laden, even though they could have saved their country from war,” said the official. “They wouldn’t break with terrorists then, so why would we take them seriously now?”

The following day, asked by ABC News This Week host George Stephanopoulos about possible negotiations with “high level” Taliban leaders, Clinton said, “We don’t know yet.”

But then she made the same argument the unnamed US official had made to Gopal on Saturday. “[W]e asked [Taliban leader] Mullah Mohammed Omar to give up Osama bin Laden before he went into Afghanistan after 9/11,” Clinton said, “and he wouldn’t do it. I don’t know why we think he would have changed by now.”

In the same ABC interview, Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggested that the Taliban would not be willing to negotiate on US terms until after their “momentum” had been stopped.

“I think that the likelihood of the leadership of the Taliban, or senior leaders, being willing to accept the conditions Secretary Clinton just talked about,” Gates said, “depends in the first instance on reversing their momentum right now, and putting them in a position where they suddenly begin to realize that they’re likely to lose.”

In a statement issued two days after the Clinton-Gates appearance on ABC, the Taliban leadership, which now calls itself “Mujahideen“, posted another statement saying that what they called their “proposal” had been rejected by the United States.

The statement said, in part, “Washington turns down the constructive proposal of the leadership of Mujahideen,” and repeated its pledge to “ensure that the next government of the Mujahideen will not meddle in the internal affairs of other countries including the neighbors if the foreign troops pull out of Afghanistan.”

The fact that both the State Department and the NSC are now maintaining silence on the offer rather than repeating the Clinton-Gates expression of skepticism strongly suggests that the White House does not want to close the door publicly to negotiations with the Taliban linking troop withdrawal to renunciation of ties with al-Qaeda, among other issues.

Last month, a US diplomat in Kabul made an even more explicit link between US troop withdrawal and a severing by the Taliban of their ties with al-Qaeda.

In an article published on November 11, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin, who was then visiting Kabul, quoted an unnamed US official as saying, “If the Taliban made clear to us that they have broken with al-Qaeda and that their own objectives were nonviolent and political – however abhorrent to us – we wouldn’t be keeping 68,000-plus troops here.”

That statement reflected an obvious willingness to entertain a negotiated settlement under which US troops would be withdrawn and the Taliban would break with al-Qaeda.

A significant faction within the Obama administration has sought to portray those who suggest that the Taliban might part ways with al-Qaeda as deliberately deceiving the West.

Bruce Riedel, of the Brookings Institution, who headed the administration’s policy review of Afghanistan and Pakistan last spring, recently said, “A lot of smoke is being thrown up to confuse people.”

But even the hardliner Riedel concedes that the Pakistani Taliban’s attacks on the Pakistani military and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) threaten the close relationship between the Afghan Taliban and ISI. The Pakistani Taliban continues to be closely allied with al-Qaeda.

The Taliban began indicating their openness to negotiations with the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in September 2007. But they began to hint publicly at their willingness to separate itself from al-Qaeda in return for a troop withdrawal only three months ago.

Mullah Omar’s message for Eid al-Fitr in mid-September assured “all countries” that a Taliban state “will not extend its hand to jeopardize others, as it itself does not allow others to jeopardize us … Our goal is to gain independence of the country and establish a just Islamic system there.”

But the insurgent leadership has also emphasized that negotiations will depend on the US willingness to withdraw troops. In anticipation of Obama’s announcement of a new US troop surge in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar issued a 3,000-word statement on November 25 which said, “The people of Afghanistan will not agree to negotiations which prolongs and legitimizes the invader’s military presence in our beloved country.”

“The invading Americans want Mujahideen to surrender under the pretext of negotiation,” it said.

That implied that the Taliban would negotiate if the US did not insist on the acceptance of a US military presence in the country.

The day after the Taliban proposal to Washington, Afghan President Hamid Karzai made a public plea to the United States to engage in direct negotiations with the Taliban leadership.

In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Karzai said there is an “urgent need” for negotiations with the Taliban, and made it clear that the Obama administration had opposed such talks. Karzai did not say explicitly that he wanted the United States to be at the table for such talks, but said, “Alone, we can’t do it.”

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.

I guess it’s sort of a chicken-egg scenario. Does a polarized society breed a polarized media or does a polarized media breed a polarized society? Increasingly we are seeing folks take opposite positions not on opinion but on the facts. When that happens, someone plain and simple, is lying.

There are loads of examples but the one that was most recently brought to my attention by my readers is the case of Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings. Let’s start with the phrase “Safe Schools Czar”. This phrase fits in with the conservative talking point that Obama has all these unconstitutional “czars”. The Safe Schools Czar was in fact created by George W. Bush as part of No Child Left Behind and was staffed with two people with no qualifications in education. Jennings, appointed by Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education  (not Obama) was the first Safe Schools Czar with any background in education.

Let’s dig deeper and look at some of the coverage:

Jennings hid a case of statutory rape: A student confided in Jennings that he had been involved with an older man. Jennings “counseled” him that he should wear protection. Jennings actually contributed to the statutory rape part of the story by mistakenly referring to the boy as 15 years of age when he was in fact 16 (the age of consent).  Fox News had to correct its sensational headline when the boy himself came forward with evidence of his age. To further lay the matter to rest, Jennings said:

Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities. Teachers back then had little training or guidance about this kind of thing. All teachers should have a basic level of preparedness. I would like to see the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools play a bigger role in helping to prepare teachers.

via Kevin Jennings Releases Statement on Past Controversial Conduct.

Admittedly, this statement is a bit too little too late. As gay conservative blogger, B. Daniel Blatt points out, the issue is how could anyone in counseling the boy neglect to give the obvious advice to NOT have casual sex with strangers (which is what the boy admitted to).  By fanning the flames of a bogus statutory rape charge, the right-wing lost the opportunity to hammer home Blatt’s more relevant point.

Jennings is a NAMBLA supporter: This one falls in the “Obama pals around with terrorists” category, namely lazy connect the dots journalism. Jennings, who is gay, spoke positively of Harry Hay, a gay activist from the 1950’s and  1960’s. He found inspiration from Hay’s advocacy.  Some headlines cited Hay as founder of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). The fact is that Hay did not found NAMBLA although late in his life he was a vocal NAMBLA sympathizer. At no time did Jennings voice support for NAMBLA nor did he say that Hay’s support of NAMBLA influenced him.

Jennings distributed porn to students: This is one of the latest shoddy jobs of journalism (i.e. lies) coming out of the right-wing. Jennings founded and led GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network). GLSEN sponsored a conference at which a third-party (Fenway Community Health) made available pamphlets describing explicit sexual activity. GLSEN did not request this information be made available nor did it approve of it. It was basically a slip up.

Now let’s look at this slip up from a few different angles. First, this was not classroom activity in a school, this was a conference about sexual matters and any parent taking their kid to such a conference had to understand the inherent risk of seeing information that might be over the top. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why any parent would take their kid to such a conference. Second, although Fenway claims no child took any of the pamphlets, let’s assume one did. Would that pamphlet scar him for life? Would it be any different from the kid finding a Hustler magazine in the basement? Cable companies have accidentally broadcast porn in the middle of a family show. While it triggered outrage, were any kids permanently scarred? Third, there is the question of what information should be shared with kids by way of preparing them for the real world. While I found the information in the pamphlet age-inappropriate (various “alternative” sexual practices were discussed) it reminded me of information I received in junior high school some 35 years ago. Back then, under the guise of informing kids about drugs so they wouldn’t use them, very detailed information was distributed to students on every drug imaginable, its effects, its slang names, etc. Years later, I looked back on it a bit puzzled. Why would you tell kids everything they wanted to know about drugs if the goal was to keep them away from it? In my opinion this is a typical pattern in educational circles of giving too much information. While the GLSEN conference is an extreme case, I think it fits the pattern.

Jennings wrote the forward to a pedophilia book: This is one of the more preposterous of the lies promulgated by the right-wing media. This lie is almost understandable because the truth is much more complex and to many minds, just as disturbing. Fox and friends simply found the lie easier to sell than the more complicated truth. The book in question is titled Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling. I read an excerpt on Amazon.com. From my reading, it starts from the premise that homosexuals are born that way and therefore, teachers have in their class straight and gay students. Right off the bat, this premise leaves behind an entire league of people for whom homosexuality is deemed a choice, not an innate predisposition. With that premise in place, the book goes on to discuss how can we educate “homosexual children” in such a way that they are not demeaned or pigeon holed into a heterosexual model of behavior.

To any ordinary Joe, this is some radical stuff. The whole idea of labeling a five year old gay is ridiculous to some and downright repugnant to many. The fact is, as far as I can surmise, Kevin Jennings is steeped in a very political view of gay rights that includes the perception that gays are unfairly treated right out of the womb. (By the way, his “hero” Harry Hay seems to have the same view.)

So what is the bottom line to all this? In the never-ending effort to dumb down America and get eyeballs on web pages and TV screens, the right-wing media chose a bunch of lies (and some half-truths) to get everyone riled up about Kevin Jennings. What is fascinating is that the truth, although perhaps harder to present on paper, still leaves the average person with misgivings about Jennings. Should Duncan have appointed him? Despite Jenning’s stellar resume, I think Duncan bought himself more trouble than he needed to. America is justifiably sensitive about who controls their children’s education. While I believe Jenning’s ultimate influence in his job is small, mostly limited to anti-bullying campaigns, his real background (not the trumped up BS) touches on radical ideas for which most of the country is not yet ready. Some may call Jennings an outright pervert, others may call him a man before his time. No matter how you cut it, Duncan could have made a better choice.

If you want to investigate the different sides of this story, Gateway Pundit has made an entire side-business to “following” Jennings. Media Matters has taken the position of supporting Jennings (unfortunately mostly by saying “that’s not true, that’s not true” but providing little contrary evidence). Think Progress wrote a practical unemotional attempt to fact check the Jennings stories. George Stephanopoulos and Sean Hannity square off on the topic, with George trying to be a journalist and Hannity yelling the sky is falling.

Unfortunately, as long as the media chooses to lie instead of doing the hard work, you will have to do your own research to get a better understanding of any issue.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

President Obama

President Obama brought change to Washington this year when he was inaugurated as the 44th President on January 20th. He immediately set to work on reversing the obstructionist policies of the Bush Administration, beginning with the closure of Guantanamo Bay. His ambitious healthcare reform is set to become law next year, and will leave the President will several other big issues to solve- the economy, climate change and the war in Afghanistan.

Speaker Pelosi

Speaker Pelosi has cast waves since she was elected to the Speakership in 2006. Her strict and successful leadership has resulted in many key legislative issues passing in the House of Representatives. She turned heads this year when she accused the CIA of lying about torture techniques, causing outrage from the Republican Party. Once again, her information and judgement was proved right. Pelosi is President Obama’s right-hand political woman, and she will have an equally influential part to play in 2010 with the continuing issues of climate change and employment.

George Stephanopoulos

George Stephanopoulos, once Communications Director for President Clinton caused his own headlines earlier this month when it was announced he would be moving to anchor Good Morning America. One wonders what the move will do to Stephanopoulos’s career, and if political Sunday mornings will ever be the same again!

Diane Sawyer

Diane Sawyer, (whose seat Stephanopolous now occupies) announced that she would be moving to anchor the Nightly News on ABC earlier this autumn. Only the second woman to currently present the evening news (Katie Couric of CBS being the first,) Sawyer will start later this month.

Senator Olympia Snowe

Senator Olympia Snowe (R:ME) is currently being courted by both Republican and Democratic members of the Senate. The reason why? Healthcare. Snowe cast the only Republican vote in the Senate Finance Committee to support healthcare reform, breaking away from the rest of her party. Obama needs her vote to declare the legislation bi-partisan.

Hillary Clinton

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hit the ground running as she began her new position this year. Visiting countries such as the UK, Pakistan, Russia and Afghanistan, Clinton certainly has many of the world’s issues on her agenda. She has proven to be a successful choice for President Obama, and once again quelled rumours that she would be running for another election- this time, the Governor of New York.

Oprah Winfrey

The Queen of daytime TV, Oprah Winfrey shocked audiences this autumn when she announced her award-winning and legendary show will be her last for ABC. Deciding to move to her own network as well as concentrating on other projects, the line-up for Oprah’s next career move is certainly one we will all be watching.

Senator Ted Kennedy

The passing of Senator Ted Kennedy this summer certainly did not come as a shock. The Lion of the Senate, champion of human rights, education, and healthcare amongst others was the voice of the people. His fearless and tireless campaigning for affordable and quality healthcare for all was spurred on by the Democratic Party, supporters and allies and its passing will be a memory to his legacy.

April Ryan first came onto my all-powerful radar last week with this exchange with press secretary Robert Gibbs. I was taken aback by the tabloid-y nature of her inquiry. Apparently, though, she made an impression on someone at ABC, as she ended up as part of the “Roundtable” on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Ms. Ryan had almost nothing of substance to say during the Roundtable and I got the distinct impression she had memorized her pro-forma responses beforehand; she used the majority of her time to spout predictable fill-in-the-blank punditry.

One exception was when she contrived to detour a general discussion about jobs to talk about unemployment in the Africa-American community, more or less ignoring the direct question (her first of the day, no less) from Stephanopoulos. Check out her semi-hijack here, at about the -4:50 mark. (no embedding allowed by ABC, I guess).

Chris Cuomo Leaving GMA
After three years with Good Morning America, anchor Chris Cuomo is leaving the nations second top-rated morning program. Cuomo has been promoted to.

Chris Cuomo Leaving Good Morning America for 20/20 …
Fill out the following information and click on the Send button in order to send this post, Chris Cuomo Leaving Good Morning America for 20/20, to a friend. Friends name. Friends email address. Your name. Your email address …

Chris Cuomo Leaving GMA | All About News And News
Chris Cuomo announced today that hes leaving GMA. News anchor for ABC, 39-year-old Christopher (Chris) Cuomo stayed with Good Morning America for three.

Chris Cuomo Leaving Good Morning America For 20/20 (VIDEO …
Chris Cuomo announced he will be leaving Good Morning America to join Elizabeth Vargas as co-anchor of 20/20 on Thursday (December 10) – watch.

Chris Cuomo Leaving Good Morning America, Stephanopoulos joining …
Well that was sudden. Chris Cuomo announced this morning that tomorrow would be his last day on Good Morning America but its all good. Cuom.

Chris Cuomo to Leave Good Morning America – Media Decoder Blog …
Chris Cuomo, the “Good Morning America” newsreader, is exiting the show.

Chris Cuomo is officially leaving GMA for 20/20; rumored …
Chris Cuomo has announced that hes officially leaving Good Morning America for a spot on another ABC show, 20/20. Juju Chang is his rumored replacement on.

Chris Cuomo leaving Good Morning America for ABCs evening …
Congrats @ChrisCuomo … this is the ONE morning I didnt watch GMA b/c I was at the dentist. bayou Bumpshack: Chris Cuomo Leaving Good Morning America For 20/20 (VIDEO) http://bit.ly/4nY3te; confessing7girl BYEBYE!! Chris Cuomo Leaving …

Chris Cuomo confirms he is leaving Good Morning America – From …
Good Morning America news anchor Chris Cuomo told the audience today he is leaving the show.

Good Morning America, JuJu Chang, Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopoulos, co-host, news anchor, December 8, co-anchor, News correspondent, the network, Diane Robin, mistake, EW Book, news reader, stiff

Chris Cuomo Leaving GMA
After three years with Good Morning America, anchor Chris Cuomo is leaving the nations second top-rated morning program. Cuomo has been promoted to.

Profile in Bias: Chris Cuomos Ten Years of Worrying about U.S. …
On Thursdays Good Morning America, it was announced that news anchor Chris Cuomo would be leaving the program and taking over as co-host of 20/20. Since joining ABC in 1999, the journalist has frequently spun for liberals and slammed …

Chris Cuomo Leaving Good Morning America for 20/20 …
Fill out the following information and click on the Send button in order to send this post, Chris Cuomo Leaving Good Morning America for 20/20, to a friend. Friends name. Friends email address. Your name. Your email address …

Chris Cuomo confirms he is leaving Good Morning America – From …
Good Morning America news anchor Chris Cuomo told the audience today he is leaving the show.

Chris Cuomo
News anchor Chris Cuomo announced today that he will leave the morning show Good Morning America after being part of the show for three years. He.

Chris Cuomo leaving ABC morning show for `20/20? (AP) | Learn Guitar
AP – ABC says Chris Cuomo is leaving Good Morning America to co-host the newsmagazine 20/20.

Chris Cuomo Leaving Good Morning America For 20/20 (VIDEO …
Chris Cuomo announced he will be leaving Good Morning America to join Elizabeth Vargas as co-anchor of 20/20 on Thursday (December 10) – watch.

Chris Cuomo Leaving GMA | All About News And News
Chris Cuomo announced today that hes leaving GMA. News anchor for ABC, 39-year-old Christopher (Chris) Cuomo stayed with Good Morning America for three.

Z on TV: Its Official: Chris Cuomo leaves GMA for 20/20 – Sun …
As predicted here yesterday, ABC News made it official Thursday announcing that Chris Cuomo will leave “Good Morning America” to take John Stossels old job as co-host of the primetime newsmagazine “20/20/”. Here is the ABC release: …

ABC News Anchor “tag team”; who would you pick?
Did you see it live on the 7 – 8 a.m. hour of Good Morning America (ABC a.m. newscast)? They split it up between early on after California Wildfires and Hillary as Obama’s Secy. of State (Jake Tapper offering hypotheticals) — 10 points for best response to the interview – debate on the post-election hubhub !

Was GMA interview by Chris Cuomo of author William Ayers overly belligerent?
I have been reading tripe from democrats and republicans alike blaming the current administration for this country’s financial woes. Allow me to set the record straight on some of it.

1977: Pres. Jimmy Carter signs the Community Reinvestment Act into Law. The law pressured financial institutions to extend home loans to those who would otherwise not qualify. The Premise: Home ownership would improve poor and crime-ridden communities and neighborhoods in terms of crime, investment, jobs, etc.

Results: Statistics bear out that it did not help.

Question: How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?

Answer: See below to find out who is covering up their guilt !

1992: Republican representative Jim Leach (IO) warned of the danger that Fannie and Freddie were changing from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the principals and the stockholding few.

1993: Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s rules turning the quasi-private mortgage-funding firms into semi-nationalized monopolies dispensing cash and loans to large Democratic voting blocks and handing favors, jobs and contributions to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and now the collapse of Freddie and Fannie.

1994: Despite warnings, Clinton unveiled his National Home-Ownership Strategy which broadened the CRA in ways congress never intended.

1995: Congress, about to change from a Democrat majority to Republican, Clinton orders Robert Rubin’s Treasury Dept to rewrite the rules. Robt. Rubin’s Treasury reworked rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory CRA rating. The rating was key to expansion or mergers for banks. Loans began to be made on the basis of race and little else.

1997 – 1999: Clinton, bypassing Republicans, enlisted Andrew Cuomo, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, allowing Freddie and Fannie to get into the sub-prime market in a BIG way. Led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd, congress doubled down on the risk by easing capital limits and allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments vs 10% for banks. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks their enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions in loans into poor communities, often ‘no doc’, ‘no income’, requiring no money down and no verification of income. Worse still was the cronyism: Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of work-politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. 384 politicians got big campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie. Over $200 million had been spent on lobbying and political activities. During the 1990’s Fannie and Freddie enjoyed a subsidy of as much as $182 Billion, most of it going to principals and shareholders, not poor borrowers as claimed.

Did it work? Minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners but many of those loans have gone bad and the minority home ownership rates are shrinking fast.

1999: New Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, became alarmed at Fannie and Freddie’s excesses. Congress held hearings the ensuing year but nothing was done because Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place ‘We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks,’ Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama advisor, bragged to investors in 1999.

2000: Secretary Summers sent Undersecretary Gary Gensler to Congress seeking an end to the ’special status’. Democrats raised a ruckus as did Fannie and Freddie, headed by politically connected CEO’s who knew how to reward and punish. ‘We think that the statements evidence a contempt for the nation’s housing and mortgage markets’ Freddie spokesperson Sharon McHale said. It was the last chance during the Clinton era for reform.

2001: Republicans try repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie but Democrats blocked any attempt at reform; especially Rep. Barney Frank and Sen Chris Dodd who now run key banking committees and were huge beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the mortgage giants.

2003: Bush proposes what the NY Times called ‘the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago’. Even after discovering a scheme by Fannie and Freddie to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost their bonuses, the Democrats killed reform.

2005: Then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan warns Congress: ‘We are placing the total financial system at substantial risk’.

Sen. McCain, with two others, sponsored a Fannie/Freddie reform bill and said, ‘If congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to th

Current Economic Woes – Who’s to blame?
..and by who is better i mean,musically.How they sing,their bands…

-Chris Martin (Coldplay)

-Thom York(Radiohead)

or

-Rivers Cuomo(Weezer)

Who is better out of these guys?..?
Going very much against the media meme that the current financial crisis is all George W. Bush and the Republicans’ fault, Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” (video available here, relevant section at 2:45).

Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone… Dems Ignored Warnings

For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President’s repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001.
Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president’s warnings:
** 2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

** 2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004

February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and thereforeshould be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, Ho

Bush and Clinton blame the Democrats for the bailout, who disagrees?
Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bill-clinton-do.html

relevant section at 2:45

Is Bill Clinton Lying when he says it was the dems that fought against fannie regulations to be tightened?
Bill Clinton on Thursday told ABC’s Chris Cuomo that Democrats for years have been “resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bill-clinton-do.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/25/fox-news-blames-democrats-financial-crisis-bill-clinton-agrees

What say you?

Clinton says Democrats for years have been resisting my and Republican moves to tighten Fannie and Freddy?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bill-clinton-do.html

(watch the video)

CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, “This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this.” Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the ‘99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They’re all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?

BILL CLINTON: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Bill Clinton blames the Democrats for our current economic turmoil. Do you agree with him, liberals?
I sure as hell – WASN’T. As I explained in another post, I don’t give a flying (you-know) about the English royals. If MY OWN attitude annoys you – you have my pity

Flame away, MFers. Flame away.”You say you don’t give a flying (you-know) about the English royals, but you’re obviously lying.

If you didn’t care about the English royals, you wouldn’t go to the trouble of coming on to this board, using crude language about them and trying to provoke people to flame you. This question proves that actually they upset you quite a lot”

Yeahhh. It wasn’t so much the royals that annoyed me as much as the reaction to the Cuomo comment As in a foreign tabloid demanding an apology

This is America. We have a First Amendment. We are beholden to NO foreign opinion. Allies or not

And for those folks in America who demanded an apology…there’re far more important things to get angry about

Were you annoyed by Chris Cuomo’s comment, “Prince Harry is expendible?”?
Not Bill Weir or Chris Cuomo, but there’s another guy I see often on GMA. He’s got brown hair and dresses really nice – love the suits! Does anyone know his name?

Who’s the really good looking guy on Good Morning America’s Weekend Edition?
There is a new song on Good Morning America that is played as they show Robin Roberts, Diane Sawyer, and Chris Cuomo riding bikes, scooters, and meeting with the audience. It says something about having friends and a beautiful reason to be happy. I am looking for the name of the song and who sings it.

chris cuomo bio, chris cuomo abc show, chris cuomo married, chris cuomo good morning america, daytime show chris cuomo, chris cuomo abc news, chris cuomo wikipedia, chris cuomo gma, chris cuomo family, chris cuomo height, GMA, Good Morning America, George Stephanopoulos, Juju Chang, Christopher Cuomo, news anchor, Diane Sawyer, co-host, co-anchor, resignation, ABCNews, the network, ABC Inc, ABC correspondent, Washington Post Company, primetime

diane sawyer

After the expected shuffling on the breakfast punch in Good Morning America, everyone is looking due to who is Replacing Diane Sawyer?
For a instance or inasmuch as the rumors were around in the media about George Stephanopoulos to replace Diane Sawyer, the co landlord of the breakfast issue rightful Morning America, but as competent are reports that ABC scoop is likely to announce this news officially today. The ABC News has buckle down to supplant Diane Sawyer take cover George Stephanopoulos.
George Stephanopoulos is currently handling the responsibilities of the Sunday show “This Week”; he will be hosting convenient Morning America from Monday morning shadow Robin Roberts.

The weekend is officially almost here. Are you ready? If you’re considering one of the big new movies opening today …you might want to take the whole fam to Disney’s The Princess and the Frog -- which is expected to be very, very popular indeed. And how about Invictus? (The year wouldn’t be complete without a new Clint Eastwood film) Actually, I don’t know how it’ll stack up against other Clintflix like Gran Torino,  Million Dollar Baby and Unforgiven, but with Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon and the South Africa & Rugby subject matter, I’ll  bet it’s a pretty interesting movie. Then we have The Lovely Bones, which is probably not for the whole family at all. No, definitely not for taking the spawn, if you ask me. Adapted from the bestselling book, and directed by the guy who brought us The Lord of the Rings.A pretty nice pedigree right off the bat; plus it also stars Mark Wahlberg. Might be a winner too. Now, in addition to the big screen, we also have key  little screen news: George Stephanopoulos has been tapped as the brand new anchor of “Good Morning America,” and he replaces Diane Sawyer, who will be taking over on the ABC Nightly News. And who caught Adam Lambert on ‘The View’? After yesterday’s poll (thank for your feedback!) I know that lots of you would be more than delighted to have lunch with the American Idol star and resident troublemaker (not that The View balked about having him on). So I was watching The View,  and it got me thinking (…here comes the poll part). Now whether you like the morning chatterfest or you hate it, you probably have an opinion about at least one of the gals. And, because I can only list 4 of them in our poll, and because we’ve already talked about her this week with her Most Fascinating Peeps list, let’s omit Barbara Walters for today. So now, voice your choice in today’s featured poll and let us know which of these 4 ladies from ‘The View’ is your favorite?

1) Whoopi Goldberg

2) Sherri Shepherd

3) Joy Behar

4) Elisabeth Hasselbeck

Good Morning America news anchor Chris Cuomo announced Thursday he will be leaving GMA. Cuomo will be moving to co-anchor 20/20 with Elizabeth Vargas.

>> Read more at SnarkFood.com now…

Conratulations to George Stephanopoulos on his new job as anchor for Good Morning America but if this report from Politico is true, he will be leaving my beloved This Week With George Stephanopoulos. I gather that it’s not imminent, but just kind of knowing it may be a certainty is upsetting. Why? Because my heart still aches from the loss of Tim Russert. As I mentioned in this post, Stephanopoulos was the guy I finally turned to after Russert shuffled off to the big Buffalo in the sky.

Nerves are raw. Where will I turn now?

Didn’t seem possible. Then we read this:

ABC News plans to announce on Thursday that George Stephanopoulos will become an anchor of “Good Morning America” in a long-expected change that sees Diane Sawyer step up to head the U.S. network’s nightly news.

Holy…! There aren’t even words to describe how boring George Stephanopoulos is. Like, they haven’t been invented. Once you get past “ball-breakingly boring,” though, there admittedly isn’t much room to expand.

May we suggest a segment called “Stephanopoulos’s Garden,” in which George, in a throwback to the Tony Perkins days, gets together with Ringo Starr and talks about making children happy? It’ll be dull, probably, but all the baby boomers who still watch this pap (read: “Good Morning America”) may tune in to watch that segment.

Seriously, though. George has come a long way. Gone are the days when he’d interview someone and never deviate from his pre-written questions. He’s actually honed his journalism skills. But when the most interesting thing about the guy is a rumor that he doesn’t wash his hands after using the bathroom at work, you’re in trouble.

There’s also this news from ABC, via the New York Times:

Media reports have said Chris Cuomo, GMA’s news reader, is leaving and will be replaced by JuJu Chang. The Washington Post reported Cuomo, son of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, will move to co-anchoring the ABC news magazine “20/20.”

JuJu Chang? Snoozefest! And with this announcement, “20/20″ will now be doing many more segments about sports and fewer segments about everything else.

Former White House aide George Stephanopoulos has signed on as the new co-host of Good Morning America. Stephanopoulos will replace Diane Sawyer, who is moving to take over the reins of ABC World News Tonight from Charles Gibson.

>> Read more at SnarkFood.com now…

Remember when Rep. Joe Wilson called out “You Lie” during an Obama speech to Congress and the Liberal Media and the Democrats nearly went into full apoplectic meltdown over the incivility of it all.

Well, now the Goose has been burnt to a crisp.

What’s good for the goose is still not good for the gander, if your a Liberal Democrat.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Monday (heard this one in the “Mainstream Media” much?):

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans can come up with is this: Slow down. Stop everything. Let’s start over,” Reid said.

“If you think you have heard these same excuses before, you are right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said: Slow down. It is too early. Let’s wait. Things aren’t bad enough.”

So now if you oppose them, your in favor of slavery!!

But don’t worry, you won’t get weeks of analysis on how uncivil this was. You’ll be lucky to ever even heard of it.

That’s “journalism” in 2009.

Of Course, Sen. Reid probably doesn’t need to be reminded the actual facts. It’s just that to a liberal in the heat of the moment and with no other recourse, an attack ad hominem is all they know how to use. Like an instinctual response of  a defensive scorpion. Sting! Sting! Sting!

“To suggest that passing this horrible bill is anything akin to ridding our country of slavery is terribly offensive and calls into question Mr. Reid’s suitability to lead,” Steele said. “Having made this disgraceful statement on the floor of the United States Senate, Mr. Reid should immediately apologize.”

Not only did Reid not apologize, but his spokesman called the criticism from Republicans “feigned outrage.” Reid’s speech offered a comparative sweep of past legislative milestones – slavery’s end, women’s suffrage, Civil Rights. (Las Vegas Sun)

Reid continued, “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

“When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.” (Town Hall)

Not only am I not sorry for my inappropriate and defamatory comment, let’s unload the full barrell of shotgun shells and go for the AK-47 and ready the Nukes!

IBD: Politicians who believe in the never-ending expansion of government are fully willing to pull out the stops when something as big as government-run health care is within grasp.

Maybe he does need to be reminded. Maybe his “liberal education” never taught him the real facts.

Does Harry Reid really forget that the Republican Party’s First real candidate for president after it surpassed and supplanted the Whigs, was Abraham Lincoln???

Founded in Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers, the Republican Party quickly surpassed the Whig Party as the principal opposition to the Democratic Party. It first came to power in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln, a former Whig, to the presidency and presided over the American Civil War and Reconstruction.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which would end segregation nationwide, came to Congress for a vote, a number of Senators did, in fact, threaten to filibuster the bill as Harry Reid stated. What Harry Reid did not mention is that 80% of those Senators that threatened to filibuster the Civil Rights Act were Democrats. In fact, 31% of Democrats in Congress voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That means about 1/3 of the Democrat Party refused to end segregation nationwide.

People like Sen Robert Byrd, who is still there!

How did the Republican Members of Congress vote concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1964? A total of 82% of the Republicans in Congress voted to end segregation nationwide. In other words, segregation ended when a larger percentage of Republicans voted in favor of civil rights.

But as I have shown repeatedly, facts that liberals don’t like or don’t push their agenda don’t matter to them.

And where is the major media: Trying to hide yet another mess under the table.

Former Clinton Mouthpiece on ABC’s Good Morning America:

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos appeared on Tuesday’s Good Morning America to spin and minimize Senator Harry Reid’s contention that opponents of health care reform are similar to supporters of slavery. After ABC played a truncated version of Reid’s quote, Stephanopoulos, hopefully observed, “My guess is this is going to blow over.”

Sure, when you censor and downplay the whole clip. How many times and in how many ways did Liberals play “You lie” and wrack themselves with glee and feigned disgust 24/7??

He did concede to co-host Robin Roberts: “Republicans were just furious about that, Robin.” But, ABC didn’t show any clips of “furious” Republicans complaining about the harsh attack. Prior to the clip being played, Stephanopoulos, who is rumored to be the next host of Good Morning America, adopted a charitable description of Reid’s comparison to slavery: “Boy, the whole Senate floor exploded over [the remarks] yesterday, when Senator Reid went to the floor and tried to rally his Democrats by evoking these great legislative fights of the past.”

It’s over-blown. No big deal. Nothing to see here.

See the same pattern as ever other time a Liberal gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar?

Now imagine a Republican, or Conservative, or even George W Bush saying this?

Impeachment would be called for. Or at least several months of 24/7 “analysis”.

But a Liberal says it, eh, so what no big deal.

It never is if it’s them.

It goes like this:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Republicans were just furious about that, Robin. My guess is this is going to blow over. The real action now going on behind the scenes in these negotiations over this public health insurance option.

Robin ROBERTS: Oh, yeah. That is another- Yeah, we haven’t even talked about that, which is so key, as we’ve been saying for many months now. And who are the key players in this, George?

Just move on, gloss it over, barely recognize it, diminish it, and move onto The Agenda.

That’s “Journalism” for you in 2009.

Hate Air America (yes, apparently they still exist): Should Harry Reid apologize? And should Democrats resort to the sort of bomb throwing name calling that Republicans have been doing for years?

I would laugh but I am too cynical for that.

How low can they go? The desperate Democratic peddlers of a government health care takeover have proclaimed an insurance “holocaust in America” (Fla. Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson), lambasted conservative health care town hall protesters as “political terrorists” (Indiana Democratic Rep. Baron Hill), sent SEIU thugs to demonstrate outside Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman’s private residence, and derided senior citizens questioning President Obama’s fuzzy math savings claims (California Democratic Rep. Pete Stark: “I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.”) Now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is leading them deeper into demagogic mire.

Following in the mucky footsteps of former President Jimmy Carter (who blamed GOP Rep. Joe Wilson’s objections to Obama’s policy deceptions on a “racism inclination”) and Jesse Jackson (“You can’t vote against health care and call yourself a black man”), Reid likened Republicans who object to socialized medicine to slave masters, enemies of women’s suffrage.(Town hall)

As low as they have to get what they want. It doesn’t matter to them. And it sure as hell doesn’t matter to ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN, et al.

Town Hall: There is now a $200,000 “bounty” on the head of U.S Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue. Left-wing activist website “Velvet Revolution” published a want ad this week with Donohue’s picture on it, soliciting information leading to “the arrest and conviction” of the business leader for “opposing progressive initiatives.”

IBD:“We now seek hard evidence that will stand up in the court of law; i.e., documents, affidavits and testimony implicating Donohue in crimes; including fraud, tax violations, campaign finance violations, money laundering, insider trading, election tampering, pension fund and stockholder manipulations. We want to hear from insiders and whistle-blowers posessing (sic) information not already in the public domain.”

Is it just us, or is this the most despicable act the hipster left has come up with since MoveOn.org tried to smear General David Petraeus as General Betray-Us in a New York Times ad last year?

But these are the compassionate, rational, loving, salt-of-the earth, bi-partisan,tolerant, saintly (compared-to evil-capitalist Republicans) Defender of Mom and Apple Pie, who care about the poor, and the downtrodden.

And don’t the Mainstream Media tell you any different!

IBD: No wonder White House Press Secretary Gibbs delivered his infantile diatribe this week claiming that the president’s 47% approval according to the Gallup tracking poll — a new low — is meaningless.

CSM: In a blame-the-messenger moment, the press secretary, citing swings in Mr. Obama’s approval ratings in Gallup daily tracking data, said: “I am sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that.”

Gibbs continued: “I don’t put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is the daily Gallup trend. I don’t pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it.

It’s no big deal that Obama has the lowest approval rating at this point in his presidency since Harry S. Truman. He’s a Liberal. It doesn’t matter.

We’ll beat George W Bush into a bloody pulp over his approval ratings, but Obama’s, peshaw, nothing to see here. it’s meaningless.

Notice how liberals love that word when deflecting criticism and scandals from them?

And finally: a Bit of ironic humor from The Christian Science Monitor:

Tomatoes Going Rogue

All the drama occurred yesterday at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota. Palin was at another stop on her “Going Rogue” book tour.

At some point during the four hour engagement, a man perched on a second floor balcony hurled two tomatoes at Palin. The rapidly-moving vegetables fruits didn’t come close. One onlooker said they missed by at least 10 feet.

That didn’t mean the aggressor was unsuccessful however. He managed to hit two people. Who happened to be cops.

Needless to say, an arrest quickly followed. Jeremy Paul Olson, was charged with assault and disorderly conduct.

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (2009) or is that the The Gang/Guy That Couldn’t Shoot Straight??

Breaking News:

Some good news possibly though: Sen Ben Nelson (D-NE)  has promised to vote against the overall legislation unless his amendment is included. This was a total ban on federal funding for abortion.

The Democrats voted it down.

If he carries out his threat, Democrats would fall at least one vote short of passage unless they can find a Republican to fill his shoes.

So I guess they will be kissing up to Maine Senators Olympia Snow and Susan Collins now more than ever!!

Which means compromises that many Democrats will hate. But will they swallow it to just get something, ANYTHING, passed so they and the media can stand triumphant as the saviors of the American people?

Stay Tuned.

The sideshow has only just begun.

George Stephanopoulos (right), supposed news man at ABC, has participated in daily phone strategy sessions with now White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He and Charles Gibson, left, have both come under criticism for their frequent liberal commentary.

-

In October 2008 – during the height of presidential election fervor – ABC contributor Michael S. Malone, a 30-year veteran in journalism, did something few in mainstream media dared to do – he blasted the media at large for blatant pro-Barack Obama coverage.

“The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game – with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates,” Malone wrote. “The media have covered this presidential campaign with a bias and that ultimately could lead to its downfall. The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling.”

ABC has often been criticized for its flagrantly liberal bravura. Earlier this year, ABC’s Chris Cuomo suggested Republicans were reckless in their opposition to President Obama’s health care reform plan. In February, it was reported that long-time ABC personality George Stephanopoulos had participated in daily phone strategy sessions with now White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. As punishment for his highly unethical behavior, ABC is considering Stephanopoulos for Diane Sawyer’s soon-to-be-empty seat on Good Morning America.  And that’s how they roll at ABC…

But Malone has continued to follow the Obama presidency with a moderate, objective tone – going against the swift current of ABC coverage that reflects a continued infatuation with the liberal president and his agenda.

In Malone’s column today, it was President Obama’s much-touted Jobs Summit that brought out the skeptical, true voice of journalism at the otherwise irrelevant news side of the network.

“…it was billed as a ‘listening’ event by the administration — and everybody knows what that word really means: We’ll pretend to listen in order to shut everybody up, then we’ll do exactly what we planned all along,” Malone wrote. “…if you’re on line at the employment office right now and you’re hoping that the jobs summit is actually going to help you get, you know, a job, you’d better keep filling out that form in front of you.”

Michael S. Malone - ABC's lone voice of objective analysis

But his criticism of the Obama Administration goes much deeper than this one issue, covering the full scope of the president’s authority. Malone suggests Obama’s questionable priorities have become very clear – nationalizing health care, protecting and expanding organized labor, and instituting a national energy scheme.

Malone’s harshest assessment of the President, however, has been on Obama’s handling of relationships with other world leaders.

He says Obama has a clear desire to “reposition America’s role in the world as a partner rather than a leader. Meanwhile, there are two nettlesome problems that continue to demand his attention, but he seems annoyed at having to deal with: Afghanistan and unemployment…  he has reacted to both by dithering, postponing decisions and acting busy on other, equally pressing matters.”

Interestingly, Malone has been with the network since 2000, contributing primarily as a business and technology writer with a column called “Silicon Insider.” His writing doesn’t frequently touch on hot political issues, and even when it does, it is rare that he espouses such strong opinions on White House politics.

So far at ABC, Malone’s moments of political clarity seem to be isolated incidents, not likely to pervade the network’s liberal group think.

Stephanopoulos: ClimateGate Complicates Copenhagen for Obama

News Busters
November 29, 2009

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos actually brought up the ClimateGate scandal as a topic for discussion during the Roundtable segment on Sunday’s “This Week.”

Not surprisingly, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman found “not a single smoking gun” in those e-mail messages (video in two parts embedded below the fold with transcript and commentary by myself and others involved in this debate):