Steve Benen of The Carpetbagger Report and formerly of Salon admits his error on the McHenry "US soldier was a two-bit security guard story" but digs himself deeper anyway:
Update: With regard to McHenry and the “two-bit security guard,” I referenced the guard as a member of the U.S. military based on the reports of multiple sources.
"Multiple sources"? Follow his links and you will find:
(a) the Sigmon for Congress website offering a copy of the Sigmon press release attacking McHenry, as well as the YouTube link to the McHenry dinner speech video; let's note that this press release refers to "a sentry protecting U.S. personnel in Iraq", not a US soldier, and that nothing in the dinner speech suggest the guard was a US soldier.
(b) Carolina Politics Online, which uses the word soldier in their headline (McHenry Refers to Soldier as “Two Bit Security Guard”) and offers as support... a link to the Sigmon press release and the YouTube video available at the Sigmond site. New evidence? None.
(c) ThinkProgress, which uses the word soldier and offers as evidence... a link to Carolina Politics Online. New evidence? None.
Multiple sources indeed. Hellooo, Steve... Steve... Steve... Can you hear me... hear me... hear me... three sites linking to one bit of evidence still means you have only one bit of evidence... evidence.. evidence...
I doubt I am getting through. Hmm - we are sidling up to the point where we wonder whether Steve is kidding himself, or trying to kid his readers. Well, maybe he is kidding his readers - I know I am laughing pretty hard.
And what about Amanda at ThinkProgress? She ducks responsibility as follows:
Update Michael Goldfarb reports that the "two-bit security guard" was a foreign contractor, not a member of the military, as both Carolina Politics and Lance Simon (sic) originally reported.
Stop, please - Carolina Politics echoed the Sigmon site. And where did the Sigmon site say the guard was a US soldier? I don't see it, nor do I hear it in the video, to which Amanda was free to listen.
From the Sigmon site that started it all, with possibly helpful emphasis added:
LINCOLNTON- In a moment eerily akin to a Hillary Clinton "misspeak," 10th District Rep. Patrick McHenry called a sentry protecting U.S. personnel in Iraq a "two-bit security guard" in a brief appearance Saturday night at a Lincoln County Republican Party event.
McHenry's gaffe occurred in his telling of a story about his recent two-day visit to Iraq. He said he was stopped by a military guard in the area known as the Green Zone, when he was going "to the gym" in the early morning hours on Easter after being unable to sleep.
The congressman belittled the sentry- referring to him as a "two-bit security guard"- for following his orders by not allowing him to enter the gym without "proper credentials," according to McHenry's own telling of the story to an audience of some 160 Republicans.
Even after demanding to see the guard's superiors, by McHenry's own account, he still was refused entry into the gym and was told he had to return to his room, in a pool house at one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces in the Baghdad area.
..."Besides his obvious contempt for a guard's assigned duties, his belief that being a congressman makes him immune to the rules and his exaggerated claim of exposure to hostile fire, what really bothers me is the Iraq trip itself," Sigmon added.
The Sigmon team was pretty careful in their press release, unlike their heralds. [But See YOUTUBE CHICANERY, below]
Look, Amanda and Steve wanted to believe something and didn't want to bother to check it. A little honor and accountability after the fact might help. Or not.
As to the Sigmond people, this is pretty close to a lie:
McHenry's tale at the Lincoln County GOP's annual Lincoln Day Dinner also included a death that supposedly occurred during insurgent rocket attacks, which did occur in the Green Zone shortly after he returned to his quarters.
However, official U.S. Embassy spokesman Philip T. Reeker said the facts were somewhat different, emphasizing that there were no fatalities from that rocket attack.
Well, so what? There were multiple rocket attacks that week; McHenry said that he was fortunate, and that one individual lost his life in the rocket attacks (understated but true) - presumably his point was that these attacks were quite serious, and whether anyone died in the specific attack he described is hardly the point.
Finally, let me note again the hypothesis that the Sigmond people have edited the YouTube video in order to distort its meaning. It may well be that McHenry's speech was building towards a dramatic finish with the self-deprecating point that the "two-bit security guard" had saved his life by doing his job. That is how he described it on the radio, apparently - he admits it was a poor word choice, says the guard was a foreign contractor, and says the speech concluded with a tribute to the brave men and women defending us in Iraq.
Karl at Team Protein is concise and brutal.
And Praise Allah:
Still a jerky thing to say of a foreign contractor, as McHenry’s office acknowledges, but if he’s telling the truth, what he was trying to do is describe the ironic flash of pique he felt when the guard denied him access to the gym. Why ironic? Because the building was hit by a mortar minutes later. (Watch this video of McHenry, shot on the scene as the gym burns in the background.) Your call, then. Either he was speaking semi-facetiously about a guy who ended up saving his life by doing his job or else he’s still pissed after the fact that he wasn’t allowed in to use the treadmill and get blown to pieces.
We make these tough calls every day.
UPDATE: In a related piece, Bob Somerby picked Friday to wonder whether libs have become as stupid as conservatives; he deplores their research skills and eagerness to name-call.
YOUTUBE CHICANERY: The Sigmond campaign posted the YouTube video of McHenry's speech; it is currently titled "Patrick McHenry calls guard "two bit", lies about death".
But either the Google cache is wrong and people miscopied it, or the original title was "Patrick McHenry calls soldier "two bit", lies about death". So the Sigmond people did get their hands dirty on this.
Good job, although I doubt it will have any influence over the folks on the Left. Just take a look at John Cole, the blogosphere's male equivalent of Cindy Sheehan, and you find that he's not taking anything back...and is damn proud of it.
Posted by: Terry | April 04, 2008 at 07:30 PM
Multiple sources indeed. Hellooo, Steve... Steve... Steve... Can you hear me... hear me... hear me... three sites linking to one bit of evidence still means you have only one bit of evidence... evidence.. evidence...
Bwahahahhhaha, I love you man.
By the way, I would like to thank the pinko commie punks of the left for thier support for our contractors in Iraq. Haliburton, KBR others.
You come along way Baaaaby from "screw them" Hey
Posted by: LH | April 04, 2008 at 07:49 PM
I dunno, seems like an awful lot of work for such meager results.
The left blogosphere hates the right blogosphere and the right hates the left and each side will quickly grab whatever anecdote they can find to attack the other.
Details to be determined later.
This does show the amazingly quick skills of TM's.
Posted by: SteveMG | April 04, 2008 at 08:03 PM
Man, you are good at following the bouncing ball game, TM.
Posted by: clarice | April 04, 2008 at 08:07 PM
Maguire, you're a one-man wrecking crew. All I have to do is wait for you to expose these weenies, then I go over to their blogs and taunt them, quite childishly, without mercy and with great relish. What a fun game!
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 04, 2008 at 08:25 PM
Surprise, surprise.
Olbermann's Countdown just went with the "two-bit security guard" as US soldier.
Granted, the line was delivered by Rachel Maddow, debuting as guest anchor in the absence of Keith.
Remarkably, even in Keith's absence, it sounds just like him and has the same reliance on the left-wing blogs.
Posted by: interested | April 04, 2008 at 08:34 PM
Remarkably, even in Keith's absence, it sounds just like him and has the same reliance on the left-wing blogs.
Sadly, they could have relied on right-wing blogs today.
Posted by: Sue | April 04, 2008 at 08:37 PM
Take pity on MSNBC--they decided the dementos were the only audience they were likely to get and they are petrified that if they do any ratinal reporting they'll lose even these loons.
OT (I think my imagination is getting the better of me.):
For a few hours this afternoon I thought I was in one of those films noir where an innocent person is charged with the murder of a companion who simply disappears from the house with all the windows and doors shut, leaving no trace.
I was working at the pc playing with my cat who wandered in and out as is her wont. I was also putting away some stuff from a big household shopping trip today and running a sort of mental inventory of what we had and what we still needed for a visit next weekend by my family.
Suddenly I heard the cat cry out. I checked out the entire very large house from top to bottom, even looking into rooms where the doors were shut (something I do to make it easier to keep track of her.) All the while I'm calling out her name and getting nothing in response.
About an hour later, she cried out again, and I repeat the search, even looking under sofas and chairs and up the fireplace flues . Still nothing.
I had no recollection of opening the cabinet underneath a guest bathroom sink where she likes to snooze , but I decided to check there anyway, already figuring my husband would think I killed the cat when I told him the not credible disappearance story. There she was, and though she didn't seem the least put out, she did nip my hand at the first possible moment.
Posted by: clarice | April 04, 2008 at 08:39 PM
TM:
Welcome To The Left Wing Echo Chamber
I don't know if it's original to RedState or not, but it's where I got it:
The reality based community is in fact a community based reality.
OH, and this should be Quote of the Day. For the next 7 days (assuming Obama or Clinton doesn't claim to have been present the day Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot):
That right there was worth the price of admission.
Still laughing.
Posted by: hit and run | April 04, 2008 at 08:54 PM
VIMH isn't exactly a vale of tears today, either, Hit.
Posted by: clarice | April 04, 2008 at 08:57 PM
More importantly -- MayBee deserves accolades for her valiant attempts to penetrate the veil of togas.
Posted by: hit and run | April 04, 2008 at 09:08 PM
Oh, and Sue -- lifting the veil!!!
Posted by: hit and run | April 04, 2008 at 09:09 PM
OT but I was looking at Obama's website under http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief>economy. Scroll to the very bottom of the link and see if you notice what I notice. Hint: Obama's record.
::grin::
Posted by: Sue | April 04, 2008 at 09:11 PM
OT (which I apologize for because it is a fairly delicious post TM) but have you guys seen Reverend Wright's letter to the NY Times. It's at Sweetness 7 Light (link under my name).
I post a paragraph for your amusement:
Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party’s national “blog.” The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior.
Posted by: J | April 04, 2008 at 09:13 PM
There really wasn't any evidence at all, was there? There was a press release that was a distortion of clear intent that was then passed through the lefty "truth filters" (those are the ones that screen out anything resembling the truth) and the filtered lie was published and accepted by the usual suspects.
Or maybe I don't know what "evidence" really means? Perhaps an attorney could enlighten me?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 04, 2008 at 09:15 PM
J, look at the pic accompanying the S & L stoey--Is that a (clove of)garlic nose on Wright or are my eyes deceiving me--
Posted by: clarice | April 04, 2008 at 09:19 PM
Hit and Run,
That struck me as well. This year's version of "Ground control to Major chch16."
Posted by: Elliott | April 04, 2008 at 09:26 PM
Isn't it odd that Obama distances himself from Wright's sermons even though he had to have heard some of them, and Wright distances himself from Obama, even though Obama claims Wright brought him to Jesus, was his mentor, etc. These two, Obama and Wright, are just weird. Or is it just me who doesn't understand why they both think everyone else is stoopid?
Posted by: Sue | April 04, 2008 at 09:33 PM
I just heard Kerry saying his "swiftboating" was "an abuse of patriotism and an abuse of truth." He must be nuts or he wouldn't be able to go out in public,let alonr continue to maintain this charade of a life.
Posted by: clarice | April 04, 2008 at 09:36 PM
I'm glad the SwiftVets still piss him off. I hope he feels a sense of helpless, frustrated rage against them until the day he dies. He deserves it for what he did.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 04, 2008 at 09:54 PM
Elliott:
That struck me as well. This year's version of "Ground control to Major chch16."
Elliott -- you know you are absolutely right.
And that reference brings me to something I had intended to do days ago -- but didn't just because I haven't been fully involved.
In honor of the passing of the name "Other Tom", I am changing my name to Other Jeff.
I had intended this to be permanent -- and it does make some sense since there was a Jeff that preceeded me -- but, the thought of it being abreviated to OJ is too much for me to bear.
So, this can be fairly represented as a one time eulogy at the passing of the name, Other Tom.
NO!!!! Not a eulogy -- a toast...TO OTHER TOM!
May Danube of Thought live up to the unyieldingness!
Posted by: Other Jeff | April 04, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Other Jeff - if you are the "other" Jeff, then who is Jeff?
(Sorry, having cocktails, and it is causing trouble with my following along coherently!)
Posted by: centralcal | April 04, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Oh Boy.
Here is John Conyers at Daily Kos, participating in that honest national debate about race his guy Obama called for:
Nobody can ever just celebrate MLK and his life and his work. There's like a test you have to pass. It makes me sad, kind of.
Posted by: MayBee | April 04, 2008 at 10:36 PM
centralcal:
Other Jeff - if you are the "other" Jeff, then who is Jeff?
Oh, gosh -- someone else will have to explain the original JOM Jeff.
Posted by: hit and run | April 04, 2008 at 10:39 PM
"someone else will have to explain the original JOM Jeff"
Easy - Jeff the Trillion Pixel Killer. Spawn of a misbred pairing of a the world's largest thesaurus with the OED, raised on meth and Prozac and thus unable to ever write a sentence that wasn't reflexively recursive to the point of incoherence.
That Jeff.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 04, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Other Jeff,
We can't even call you JD. We had one of those, too.
Posted by: Sue | April 04, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Damn, Rick. Just when I thought Tom had quote of the week locked up.
It might take a coterie of super delegates to decide this.
Posted by: hit and run | April 04, 2008 at 11:01 PM
To ease Conyer's conscience, I would like to apologize for something that happend 25 years ago in my past...
...I stayed out past curfew to see a Def Leppard concert.
Mom, Dad, I apologize.
Posted by: hit and run | April 04, 2008 at 11:06 PM
The Sigmon team was pretty careful in their press release, unlike their heralds.
Perhaps in their press release, but the title of their youtube video is:
Both halves of that statement appear to be false (not a soldier, and the Corvallis man died after an Easter Sunday Green Zone rocket attack). In addition, the end of the clip is truncated at a suspicious point (where McHenry is getting ready to tell why the story is significant). If he said something like "the guy saved my life," then the clip is misleading as well.So that's two lies minimum, because there's no way to reconcile the calculated release as a mistake . . . and perhaps an attempt to mislead. Not that any major media outlet is likely to call 'em on it, because . . . (which points up the ‘Imagine If A Democrat Had Said This’ formulation as the risible nonsense it is).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 04, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Just caught Olberman having to retract the "end of habeas corpus" comments; re
the Military Commissions Act he had made
back in 2006. Was watching BattleStar
Galactica; priorities. One recalls that
even Baltar was acquitted by the Colonial
version of a Military Tribunal. It's interesting how this show approaches an orthodox view of military patriotism than has to distort it. The Cylons, are the
Wahhabists, annihilating those who brought
them to prominence. They are blessed with
an infinite level of regeneration; so literally one rises after one kills. After a holocaust of sorts, they retreat fighting along the way; the whole event due to an Clintonian or possibly Dunhamiam egotist. There is a peace faction; "the why do they hate us" cadres, which it turns out are tied to the Cylon enemy. The aforementioned traitor who wins despite a justifiably stolen election; surrenders to the enemy proving the point. Becoming the Quisling or Petain to the 'toasters'In those instances, the Masada like moves of the Colonials, dictate desperate measures like suicide bombers; although those are futile for reasons mentioned above. There is a "Truth
and Reconciliation' phase, that is aborted
because the traitor must be punished; however the legal system makes it impossible
for him to be convicted. Not only is everyone out to get you; you don't know who
everyone is.
Posted by: narciso | April 04, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Do you suppose that McCain thought he'd pick up a lot of new Black votes when he spoke today?
Do you suppose that a lot of people seeing him booed will have a visceral reaction FOR McCain?
I think beneath the surface and not obvious yet in any of the polling is a boiling mad majority voter.
Posted by: clarice | April 04, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Other Jeff: I feel your pain. I've been commenting on this site for years. One night, I'm scrolling through the comments and there's an entry calling Tom Maguire a moron, signed "Lesley".
Um, needless to say, it was not I.
I almost changed my sn to: The Good Lesley (Who Would Never Call Tom Maguire a Moron).
So, if the other Lesley who called TM a moron happens to be reading this thread, should you ever choose to comment here again, would you be so kind as to sign in as "The Evil Lesley?" Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Lesley | April 04, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Do you suppose that a lot of people seeing him booed will have a visceral reaction FOR McCain?
I rather doubt it. Doesn't look like he got booed very much (and I can hear a man in the background say "we all make mistakes"). Fairly mild reaction, actually. (Unlike this weirdness at a Clinton rally.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 04, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Clarice, I was watching Fox, too. John Kerry continues to live in his own fantasy-land. It really is sick.
If you missed it:
Video of John Kerry on Abuse of Patriotism and Truth
(Commercial before it starts)
Posted by: Ann | April 04, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Clarice,
Conyers is an overseer on a shrinking plantation. He's old, he's never been accused of being intelligent and he can't or won't get the fact that the hustle is over.
It's going to be easy to beat BHO as a Red, much easier than beating the Witch. I'm hoping that BHO gets beat in a manner that could shatter the glue that keeps the black bloc attached to the Dems. Not because the Reps need more blacks because we don't. Love to have lots of them along but "want" isn't "need". I want to see him beat as a Red because this crap can't end until continuing it isn't worth the candle.
A win on a backlash vote would still be a win but it wouldn't do the Republic much good - and it might improve the glue.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 04, 2008 at 11:50 PM
A little honor and accountability after the fact might help.
Yeah.
And a pony.
And maybe some ice cream.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 04, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Thanks very much, OJ. I'm sure OT would appreciate your kind sentiments if he were still with us.
Boy, Clarice, am I ever with you on this one. I think by November the Bradley effect is going to be coiled like a cobra, ready to spring into action with unprecedented force. By all means, let's have a national conversation about race. Let's trot out Conyers, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Calypso Louie Farrakhan and all those other endearing spokesmen. Bring it on.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 05, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Let’s play, ‘Imagine If A Democrat Had Said This’
Isn't time to play ‘Imagine If A Republican selectively edited, completely misrepresented and inserted new verbiage to reflect dishonestly what a Democrat actually did not say? ’
Well, that's kinda long, any suggestions?
Also, I was wondering about Think Progress's non-partisan 501 c status - last Amanda blow-it (McCain plagiarized himself) she said she got a "tip" - this blow-it it appears she relied on the democrat challenger campaign. Doesn't his episode sort of blow their lame "non-partisan org" crap outta the water?
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 05, 2008 at 12:25 AM
I'd like to know whatever happened to jukeboxgrad.
===============================
Posted by: kim | April 05, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Kim,
This is for you from National Review :):
Meteorologists puzzled by snowball in Hell [Mark Steyn]
A headline from the BBC:
Global Temperatures "To Decrease"
Presumably it's in scare quotes because otherwise people might grow less scared. On the story goes:
Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said...
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
Fortunately the insurance industry is still on board:
Climate change tops list of risks to insurers
I like this addendum to the report:
The analysts identified five additional emerging risks (not part of the Top 10) that have the potential to become as significant during the next five years. These include: over reliance on model-based risk management.
Posted by: Ann | April 05, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Kim - JBG lives! Think I saw him over at PW not long ago.
Posted by: Lesley | April 05, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Thanks, Ann. That article, originally at BBC, has had some amusing changes to its headline. It is now back to the original, but for awhile said something like 'Global Warming to undergo a dip'. There have been minor changes to the text, also, as the Truth Ministry works it over. It is a little shocking to see something as honest as it is from the BBC. They've been among the worst of the cheerleaders.
It is finally striking home that carbon capping will cause real economic damage. Cosmetic changes to one's carbon footprint were all about feeling good without having to delve down and look into the real problem. Now that global cooling is rearing its cold and frightful head, more and more people are coming to their senses, and questioning the dogma. Skepticism is snowballing. Oops, that just slipped out.
====================================
Posted by: kim | April 05, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Good, Lesley. I was kind of fond of him after inventing as many pejorative variations of his name as I possibly could.
======================================
Posted by: kim | April 05, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Clarice,
"I think beneath the surface and not obvious yet in any of the polling is a boiling mad majority voter."
You have nailed it. No question about it. America will not knowingly vote a marxist (sympathizer, if you want to be charitable) into the presidency. It's really that simple.
Leftys have a great time deriding the "neo-cons". Can we begin mocking the "neo-marx(es)"? On second thought, they're doing a pretty good job of it themselves.
Posted by: Chris | April 05, 2008 at 12:48 AM
"Skepticism is snowballing."
I blame Bush. Too funny.
Posted by: Chris | April 05, 2008 at 12:51 AM
04.05.08 drudgereport.com
"All charitable donations in '06 were to Clinton Foundation."
Clinton Charitable Gifts
Somebody tell me that the Clinton's charitable donations were not to the Clintons.. Tell me I am wrong, Puh-leeze!!
Posted by: Ann | April 05, 2008 at 12:58 AM
You must be a cynic, Chris, if you even dare suspect that the Clinton Foundation distributed the donated funds in a way that aided Hill's political career. Tsk.No Christian charity, here. Where's out resident Buddhist?
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2008 at 01:04 AM
From the article:
The Clintons took a tax deduction in 2004 for $2.5 million in charitable gifts, $2 million of which went to their family foundation, which as a tax-exempt nonprofit is considered a charity under the tax code. That same year, the foundation gave away just $221,000 to charitable groups, according to its tax return.
Posted by: Ann | April 05, 2008 at 01:14 AM
Ann spotted that tidbit about the self-donating Clintons. Unfreakingbelievable. They donated money to their foundation, then took a deduction. They've certainly moved up. Wasn't that long ago when they were deducting used underwear donations. remember that?
Posted by: Chris | April 05, 2008 at 01:16 AM
Kim, heh.
His approach and style have not changed.
Posted by: Lesley | April 05, 2008 at 01:24 AM
Somebody tell me that the Clinton's charitable donations were not to the Clintons.. Tell me I am wrong, Puh-leeze!!
HAH! Did they donate to John Podesta's "Center for American Progress" and blog mistress Amanda's amazing flubs at CMA's ThinkProgress blog???
HEH.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 05, 2008 at 01:36 AM
Chris- ha!
Posted by: MayBee | April 05, 2008 at 01:38 AM
OK, I was wondering why there was this lag in releasing them. Wolfsen kept saying "soon" and "shortly" and I am thinking what in the heck is this "shortly" about, are you guys recreating user friendly versions or trying to paint a pettier picture with them? Did you ask Valerie Plame to work her special document magic on them or something? :-)
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 05, 2008 at 01:43 AM
I was trying to ascertain who are the board members of the WJC Foundation. This report says there are only 4 board members (says Bruce Lindsay is Chairman of Board but doesn't list other three members) and offers its critique of the foundation.
BBB Wise Giving Report for the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation
Posted by: Lesley | April 05, 2008 at 01:45 AM
That same year, the foundation gave away just $221,000 to charitable groups, according to its tax return.
Republicans really need to start making a campaign issue out of Democrats not walking the walk, only talking the talk.
Why should anyone donate to any Democrat campaign when they can NOT part their money to charities that cater to the causes Democrats say so need help?
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 05, 2008 at 01:48 AM
Now that's interesting. I'm pretty certain I copied-and-pasted the youtube video title here, so I'm not seeing how I coulda typo'd it. But it's changed (and now says "guard" instead of "soldier"). I'm also pretty sure there was a comment there from the campaign, saying they were going to post the rest of the video (past the point where it was truncated) tonight. And that seems to be gone as well.
Anyone know if there's a way to track history on youtube titles and comments? I'd really like to be able to document the memory hole here (and to be sure it isn't just in my increasingly fallible personal version).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 05, 2008 at 01:50 AM
The site indicates the WJC Foundation does not meet the BBB standard for charities because:
"
Standard 1 : Oversight of Operations and Staff - Organizations shall have a board of directors that provides adequate oversight of the charity's operations and its staff. Indication of adequate oversight includes, but is not limited to, regularly scheduled appraisals of the CEO's performance, evidence of disbursement controls such as board approval of the budget, fund raising practices, establishment of a conflict of interest policy, and establishment of accounting procedures sufficient to safeguard charity finances.
The Foundation does not meet this Standard because the board of directors has not reviewed the performance of the chief executive officer (CEO) in over two years and because it reports that no member of the board is assigned the responsibility of serving as the treasurer of the board of directors. In general, the board's treasurer helps provide independent oversight of the organization's finances.
Standard 2 : Number of Board Members - Soliciting organizations shall have a board of directors with a minimum of five voting members.
The Foundation does not meet this Standard because it has four (4) voting members of the board.
Standard 3 : Frequency and Attendance of Board Meetings - An organization shall have a minimum of three evenly spaced meetings per year of the full governing body with a majority in attendance, with face-to-face participation. A conference call of the full board can substitute for one of the three meetings of the governing body. For all meetings, alternative modes of participation are acceptable for those with physical disabilities.
The Foundation does not meet the meeting frequency provision of this Standard because the board did not meet in 2006.
Standard 4 : Compensated Board Members - Not more than one or 10% (whichever is greater) directly or indirectly compensated person(s) serving as voting member(s) of the board. Compensated members shall not serve as the board's chair or treasurer.
The Foundation does not meet this Standard since the paid chief executive officer (CEO) also serves as the chair of the board.
William J. Clinton Foundation (The Foundation) meets the remaining 16 Standards for Charity Accountability. "
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2008 at 01:51 AM
I know insty links are redundant, but this is just sooooapropos
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 05, 2008 at 01:54 AM
Clinton Foundation Annual Report 2006
21 pages, pdf file. No mention of corporate governance in this report. Odd.
Posted by: Lesley | April 05, 2008 at 02:04 AM
Cecil
It doesn't appear you can track edits or updates to a U-Tube and it wasn't wayback machined - but in searching the same title as originally posted with "soldiers" Alan Colmes' blog (for his radio show?) says
"Congressman Patrick McHenry Calls Soldier “Two-Bit Security Guard.”
and has an update to "contractor' vs soldier
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 05, 2008 at 02:06 AM
and Cecil, according to my in-house amateur U-Tubist - the author/poster apparently can delete comments.
That was surprising to me.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 05, 2008 at 02:13 AM
and one more stab, Cecil
you can see
Google Videos cached it
"Patrick McHenry calls soldier "two bit", lies about death"
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 05, 2008 at 02:34 AM
-(says Bruce Lindsay is Chairman of Board but doesn't list other three members)-
Gotsta pay the "fixer" a whole LOT!
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 05, 2008 at 02:39 AM
Two points on the returns:
They made 57 million in after-tax earnings over the last seven years and carry 3.3 million in home mortgages. They don't even treat the non-deductible portion as investment interest. What the heck are they doing with the borrowed money?
I thought I was inexpensive (never cheap!). They paid nothing for their 2006 tax return preparation. Maybe the preparers were too shy to let them deduct it, though. Or someone could have paid it for them.
Posted by: Walter | April 05, 2008 at 02:56 AM
Presidential Libraries
Since I took a dig at the Clintons, I am having a devil of a time locating the board of directors for the Reagan Presidential Library and Foundation.
Posted by: Lesley | April 05, 2008 at 03:00 AM
I should have added (dagnabbit) that a number of these Presidential Library websites link to presidential foundations which was the point of my search.
Posted by: Lesley | April 05, 2008 at 03:09 AM
Reagan Library and Foundation CEO/Board
Posted by: DebinNC | April 05, 2008 at 03:31 AM
I've been trying to say that Democrats used to criticize Reagan's ten thousand dollar speaking fees - someone ought to look it up
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 05, 2008 at 04:17 AM
Lesley
Have you heard why Bill Clinton's magical Library needs expetentionaly more than any other president and why his need for that is shrouded in secrecy?
His library has moved more slowly than the US Government -- tell me why She's not on this slow programtoo?
I have 3 boys with no funds to buy track shoes, Hillary got some! Y'all?
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 05, 2008 at 04:28 AM
More about CFF:
http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/04/04/clinton_charitable_giving_is_to_clinton_charity>Gloria CLinton CEO
Clinton got over $15 m from Burkle/Dubai outfit
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080405/pl_bloomberg/agwqtifnr4mc_1>Stinky money
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2008 at 08:16 AM
"Let's trot out Conyers, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Calypso Louie Farrakhan and all those other endearing spokesmen. Bring it on."
"Bring it on." would put the battle on progressive turf - I don't wrestle pigs.
Conyers, Lee and Waters are Prog Overseers (there are at least 20 others who could be added) - we won't be rid of them until the plantations are busted up and that won't happen until 2021-2. It won't happen even then unless the Dem policy of immiseration through segregation in order to maintain an "oppressed" class is exposed.
Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan and Wright are hustlers and hucksters whose scam is obvious and whose influence is waning with each passing year. Where's the "new blood" scammer (aside from BHO)? All four have looted their "constituency" to the point where they are wealthy beyond want and all four are well started down the road to deserved obscurity.
The progs have seriously misplayed their hand on a number of fronts. Immigration isn't turning out to be such a winner, and as Arpaio shows, the answer to the "problem" is well within the capabilities of any jurisdiction willing to rent a backbone. AGW is becoming a joke - Gaia doesn't appear to like Gore very much. The prog press has managed to talk the economy down, which would be a real negative if Bush were running. Being unable to "blame Bush", the electorate may well choose to blame the do nothing majority in Congress.
And then there's the Culture of Corruption with Jefferson awaiting trial, Spitzer awaiting indictment, Blagojevich awaiting indictment, Kilpatrick indicted, Paterson looking just a bit nervous...
I just don't see what "Bring it on" would add.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 05, 2008 at 08:29 AM
Clarice: Who is Gloria Clinton?
I tried googling her, but gave up. Did see a Craiglist excerpt calling the Clinton's donations/charities the "family and friends plan." Ha ha.
Posted by: centralcal | April 05, 2008 at 08:49 AM
I have no idea who Gloria is..maybe it's a penname for one of their brothers.
And another Hillary whopper:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1207397885-fq6lxc353FB+eOOeFRHIEg>Bigger than snipergate?
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2008 at 09:00 AM
TS9, I thought "expetentionaly" was a lovely new word to look up, but I couldn't find it. Perhaps s/b "exponentially" - in an exponential manner; "inflation is growing exponentially"
Posted by: sbw | April 05, 2008 at 09:07 AM
I'm with Walter, the Clintons can earn anything they want, as long as they get out of politics. Of course I don't want them out of politics quite yet. November will be just fine.
And Clarice I'm also with you and Dot. This "discussion about race" is not helping the Messiah one bit with the non-paying attention electorate.
Posted by: J | April 05, 2008 at 09:22 AM
Wow, this must be name-changing week. How did I lose my ane?
Posted by: Jane | April 05, 2008 at 09:25 AM
There you are J!
I've been looking everywhere for you.
Posted by: ane | April 05, 2008 at 09:50 AM
I have a new post up - Rachel Maddow pinch-ranted for Olbermann and went with the full "two-bit" story. When relying on content from lefty blogs, mistrust but verify.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 05, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Thanks TS. Looks like that google video cache timed out while I was sleeping, and I'd note there's no updated longer video (as I believe was promised by the Sigmon campaign), and the comment at youtube promising such has vanished. Google cache doesn't seem to work on Sigmon's site, and I don't know why.
I'd also note the "Diggs" has a different title ("Patrick McHenry lies, insults military in Iraq War speech"), and one of the two "diggers" is Sigmon himself. In fact, Sigmon's Digg History shows the title morphing through a couple variations, which suggests the various claims originated there. There's also something odd about the way this Republican congresscritter wannabe is shopping videos through youtube to ThinkProgress (and Kossacks, et al).
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess:
Sigmon's campaign has the only copy of this video, and:- They lied about the contractor being a soldier;
- They lied about the man being killed;
- They truncated the explanation at the end to make McHenry look bad.
- They cleaned up the press release after-the-fact, leaving the suckers who bought it out on a limb.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 05, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Well, that would be dynamite..
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2008 at 10:37 AM
By "bring it on," I mean let 'em rant. Rant and rant and rant. Right up until November.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 05, 2008 at 11:57 AM
"By "bring it on," I mean let 'em rant. Rant and rant and rant. Right up until November."
Oh.
I know where the corner is but I can't find my pointy hat. I suppose sitting there will work without it.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 05, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Sigmon's campaign has the only copy of this video
McHenry says it was the Sigmon campaign that filmed the event.
I hope politicians learn they must film all of their own events, because someone else will be. And someone else has every reason to distort what was said.
Posted by: MayBee | April 05, 2008 at 12:17 PM
J9ane) of course, it's hurting Obama. I am certain his motivation for staying away from the MLK memorial was to avoid being photographed with Jackson and Sharpton.
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I would place a sizable bet on the propostion that there has been an active decision taken by the Obama campaign that he is never, ever, to be photographed in the company of either of those mountebanks. And I'd almost, but not quite, be ready to offer a substantial cash prize to the person who comes up with such a photo. Clinton and Rev. Wright have already made Obama the "black candidate." Being tagged in any way with those guys would be the kiss of death.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 05, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Exactly..Now, what we need to do--or rather Hill does--is pay them lots (maybe out of the WJC FF) to start appearing regularly in every town that Obama is scheduled to be in.
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2008 at 12:42 PM
I saw Sharpton on H&C, I think, stating that Obama begged him to get out front and endorse him. Sharpton said he told him it would hurt him so he would stay in the wings, doing stuff that wouldn't hurt him. Or something like that.
Posted by: Sue | April 05, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Heh-- If that's true, Obama really is clueless.
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2008 at 12:53 PM
J(ane):
The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame.
Poor Rev Wright had no idea the role Mr and Mrs. Plame would soon be playing to smear Obama.
Posted by: MayBee | April 05, 2008 at 01:22 PM
Sue, no matter what he said, I cannot imagine pompadour Sharpton hiding out in any wings, unless there are klieg lights and microphones.
And, I agree with Clarice's earlier post about a large segment of the electorate being coiled like snakes. Good grief, if a word like Macaca (whatever in the heck that is) can sink a campaign, then surely g-d Amerikkka, etc., etc., will do the same (eventually).
Obamamessiah's campaign turned dark and ugly and I don't think the glowing aura is gonna ever be restored. In fact, there is probably much more yet to be exposed.
Posted by: centralcal | April 05, 2008 at 01:24 PM
Oh dear, Hillary is lamenting about poverty. It sort of has a different ring since 4:01 PM yesterday.
My gawd she sounds tired. I almost feel sorry for her.
Posted by: Jane | April 05, 2008 at 01:26 PM
"We're drinking, my friend
To the end of a long episode
Make it One For My Baby
And one more for the road."
It's 3 a.m. Do you know where your campaign is?
MARK STEYN
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/clinton-hillary-ringing-2011934-three-white ">Looks like last call for Hillary
Posted by: Ann | April 05, 2008 at 01:35 PM
"I almost feel sorry for her."
I always think of Billy Dale and Juanita Broderick when that happens. It's amazing how quickly the feeling passes.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 05, 2008 at 01:37 PM
"In fact, there is probably much more yet to be exposed."
I've seen a list of Obama's advisors, but I have no idea who his closest friends are. Who are his McLarty, Thomases, Lindsey, etc?
Posted by: DebinNC | April 05, 2008 at 01:50 PM
Hit's making trouble again.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/the_only_way_to_save_the_democ.html>I thought Jane was babysitting him today
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2008 at 01:56 PM
Posted by: sbw | April 05, 2008 at 09:07 AM
Yes. I'm a dork. I once had a very creative spelling for assassination that cracked a few up. Thanks for putting up with me :-
0 (Safari's spell check is goofy and you really have to pay attention, obviously)
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 05, 2008 at 01:59 PM
You're not a dork. I knew exactly what you meant. At 4 a.m. that's perfect spelling.
Posted by: clarice | April 05, 2008 at 02:09 PM
"To the end of a long episode..."
Posted by: Ann | April 05, 2008 at 01:35 PM
FYI, the Mercer/Arlen version says brief, not long episode. (I followed the link. Steyn misquoted on purpose, I think.) The Sinatra version is one of his all-time best. J. Mercer sang the heck out of it, too.
Posted by: Larry | April 05, 2008 at 02:10 PM
TS, I had no problem deducing the meaning, and thought the created word was lovely and should exist if it doesn't already.
Dorkness is not at issue -- at least with you. Dorkness, dorkness IS an issue with many of the subjects of JOM conversation.
Posted by: sbw | April 05, 2008 at 02:21 PM
It's funny - Safari's spell check wants to replace McCain with moccasin.
Sbw
I have also have a Yogi Berra chip!
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 05, 2008 at 02:29 PM