LiveChat: Getting "Ugly" on Hillary, Petraeus, Bush's Lies, Ineffectual Dems, and More
HuffPost's LiveChat with CNN's Jack Cafferty has concluded. In his new book, "It's Getting Ugly Out There," Cafferty shares stories of his hardscrabble upbringing and offers in-your-face takes on everything from Bush and Iraq to immigration to the latest celebrity tabloid outrage.
Marie asks: If Anbar province is such a huge success, why don't we pull out the American troops? It will be a good experiment: Iraqis stand up, we stand down.
Cafferty says: The minute we pull our troops out of anywhere in that country, the tribes (Shiites and Sunnis along with various terrorists) will be right back at their civil war that's been going on in Iraq for hundreds of years.
Ron asks: Hi Jack, love what you do on TV! Why does the media ignore the good concepts, ideas, and actions of presidential candidates such as Kucinich, Paul, Richardson, and Gravel, while pumping never ending images and sound bites from the likes of Obama, Clinton, Guiliani, and Romney. Since when does the amount of money in a guy's pocket mean their ideas are any better? Can they really buy intellect like they would a counterfeit term paper?
Cafferty says: I couldn't agree more. That is exactly why we need public funding of campaigns. That way everyone would be equal and the ideas would make the ultimate difference. But it will never happen. The politicians are much too used to their lavish lifestyles paid for by wealthy contributors who then come and ask for their payback once their candidate is safely ensconced in office. The system stinks!
Manuel asks: Well, as long as we're advertising this book, why not advertise "Broken Government" by Mr. John Dean? With all due respect to Mr. Cafferty, he really knows what he's talking about.
Cafferty says: Never heard of him.
Randi asks: Do you see any chance of the Democrats nominating someone other than Clinton or Obama? Thank you.
Cafferty says: The Democratic dark horse might be John Edwards. But don't hold your breath. Hillary has a lead, lots of money, is a street fighter... and, of course, she has Bill. Tough combination.
Daniel asks: Mr. Cafferty, Why has the media allowed the "surge" to fall into an argument of whether an extension of the surge is or is not necessary, when the original debate about the surge was let's give it one last shot, if it doesn't work we get out? Now we are arguing lets keep going till next year because by then we can draw down without losing gains. Why is that accepted logic? We know that the troops must draw down by then simply because troop rotation require that the troops come home, because there aren't any more troops to send, and the military can't sustain the surge beyond that. Why has the media ignored this and the fact that this being used to allow forced reductions next year seem like the results of a victorious strategy of Bush Admin. and GOP right before the Nov. election so they can claim "We were right"?
Cafferty says: I don't think President Bush ever had any intention of leaving Iraq. I think we have been lied to about that the same way we were lied to about WMD. Military bases are under construction all over the country including one on the Iran-Iraq border. I talked yesterday on the Situation Room about the drawdown of troops being in the cards for next spring with or without a grand announcement from the Decider. Unless the administration extends deployments or further digs deeper into the reserves or National Guard, they have to start coming home. It's about time! It's just too bad there won't be more of them leaving.
William asks: Why do people continue to assume that the president is stupid and that the administration doesn't know what it's doing? Isn't that an easy out for them? At what point do we, as an American public, take the president at his word and assume that he knows exactly what he is doing and that the outcome is intended?
Cafferty says: Bill, I absolutely agree the outcome is intended. I don't for one minute think President Bush ever plans to leave Iraq. As for him knowing what he is doing... well, that's another subject altogether. Some of this is addressed in It's Getting Ugly Out There. Do you have your copy yet?
Mick asks: Why is there no draft? I just don't get it. If this war is to save our way of life (aka King George) then it MUST be a shared sacrifice -- meaning no exceptions (NONE) no lottery no deferments, the rich the poor, all must save our way of life. Conscientious objectors could serve in hospitals or other non-combat rolls. I don't get it. Oh yes i do if there were a draft and all sons an daughters were subject, the United States would be awful careful what it "stepped in." Your comment?
Cafferty says: Mick, I agree with you. A recent Gallup poll found only 18 percent of people asked said we should return to a military draft. A whopping 80 percent said no. I think one of the reasons there were more protests, demonstrations, etc. during Vietnam was the draft. Everybody risked (well almost everybody... except those with deferments like Dick Cheney who got FIVE of them) being snatched up and sent to the jungles of Vietnam to fight in another stupid, useless, pointless war. They didn't even have oil! Today's military is all volunteers... and as long as the general public isn't being asked to make any sacrifices, I think they're less likely to complain as loudly.
Wayne asks: My question is: why are all the candidates so conspicuously quiet about Social Security all of a sudden? I am a baby boomer and the problem must have dissipated, huh, no one has mentioned that I have heard.
Cafferty says: Social Security is well on its way to going broke. The so-called "trust fund" is nothing but a drawer full of IOU's somewhere in Washington. The money is taken from Social Security and spent on other things. "Trust?" The feds owe that fund about $2.2 trillion dollars. Scary stuff... unfunded liabilities (Social security, Medicare, etc) over the next dozen years or so will begin to add up to something like $50 TRILLION dollars. And the bill will be handed to our children and grandchildren. That's criminal!
Andrea asks: Do you think Democrats realize how alienated and disenfranchised thousands of their voters are? Why can't the Democrats stick together like the GOP when things are so ugly? I think we're doomed.
Cafferty says: Great question. The Democrats were handed a golden opportunity to challenge President Bush on the war when they were given control of Congress in the midterm elections last year. So far they have done absolutely nothing. (Yes, I know it takes 60 votes in the Senate... but the House must pass all appropriations bills for the war and they only need a simple majority). It seems the Democrats are the greatest thing the Republicans have going for them sometimes.
Bob asks: Dear Mr. Cafferty, Why is it that most in the media have reported on the announced drawdown of 30,000 troops from Iraq next summer as though this were some sign that the President is changing course in his disastrous policy, when the truth is that he does not have a real choice, and that these troops are scheduled to rotate out anyway, leaving the original 130,000 pre-surge forces to continue dying in Iraq's civil war? Time and again, it seems that those we depend on to ferret out the truth act as stenographers for the Bush Administration. Those paying attention could see the coordinated campaign gearing up for months to snooker the public once again about what is really going on in Iraq.
Cafferty says: Bob, When you're right, you're right. And you're right.
Rosa asks: Dear Jack, Why is there a dearth of Latino guests on news programs, except concerning immigration? BTW: Please let the higher echelons at CNN know that you deserve more airtime on The Situation Room. Look forward to reading your book.
Cafferty says: Rosa, I don't know the answer to the first part of your question. But I am delighted you think I should get more airtime on CNN and even happier you are looking forward to my new book, It's Getting Ugly Out There. Thanks for watching the Situation Room.
Bob asks: Mr Cafferty, Is the influence of the Israeli-American political lobby (AIPAC) on U.S. foreign policy too strong, too weak, or just right?
Cafferty says: I don't see AIPAC as any different from any other lobbying or special interest group. (Did you know there is a lobby in Washington whose purpose is to replace the Nouri al-Maliki government in Iraq?) Israel is a staunch ally of the United States, and with all the uncertainty in the Middle East, it's kind of comforting to have their military there as a backup to ours. (They really can "kick ass.") The appropriate amount of U.S. support for Israel is for brighter people than me to decide... but I sort of like having them where they are.
Barbara asks: Would really like to get at the real reason we went into Iraq. We know there were no WMD and there was absolutely no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. So let's get to the real reason or reasons this bunch of Neocons trumped up a bunch of lies to get us there and seems determined to keep us there.
Cafferty says: In my humble opinion the Bush administration used 9/11 as an excuse to start the war in Iraq. People make a lot of money during wartime... $600 billion we've spent there so far.... and a lot of that money has gone to friends of the administration. And of course there is all that oil. I don't think for a single second there was anything honorable about the decision to invade a sovereign country. They had nothing to do with 9/11 and had done nothing to the United States. But hey... what do I know?
Cindi and Tom ask: Social Security is not at the forefront of hot topics. Believe it or not, a lot of the American public rely on it continuing as their safety net. Medicare is in a similar situation. How are we going to be able to fund these?
Cafferty says: There are only two options... raise taxes or cut benefits.
D. asks: Jack, Have you ever employed an illegal alien as a housekeeper? Have you ever hired a landscaper or gardener to work for you who clearly employed illegal aliens? Have you ever frequented a restaurant that employed illegal aliens? Have you ever had construction done by illegal aliens. Have you ever bought clothes that were made with the labor of illegal immigrants. And if you are not sure, is it because you chose not to ask or simply look into it? Don't you believe that the cheaper prices that Americans pay for products and services, as a result of immigrant labor, deserves to be taken into account as a clear benefit that everyone is willing to take advantage of, and no one really wants to give up?
Cafferty says: I think when our borders are secured and our immigration laws are being obeyed we can have a national debate about the benefits of cheap lawn care. Until then, I think our open borders are a threat to our national security. And the refusal of our government to enforce the immigration laws is criminal behavior in time of war.
Fred asks: Jack, what do you really think? P.S. -- CNN really has to give you your own show!
Cafferty says: From your mouth to CNN's ears! It's getting ugly out there!
Laurel asks: Yesterday, in the testimony before a senate panel, Sen. John Warner asked the most salient question of Gen. Petraeus, "Are we safer," and after dancing around the answer, and Warner asking him again, Gen. Petraeus, said, "I don't know."
That question was the heart of the whole reason that Pres. Bush sent us to war -- what nearly 4,000 U.S. troops have died for, and thousands have been wounded, and the general commanding the war has NO IDEA IF WE ARE SAFER because of our involvement!
But what is almost as shocking (because nothing could beat Gen. Petraeus' answer) is that not one paper (that I saw) led with a headline that could have read: "Gen. Petreaus has no idea of the Iraq war has made us safer."
Can you explain that?
Cafferty says: Wouldn't you know it took a man in uniform to finally come up with an honest answer in Washington?
Zac asks: With regard to the linguistic controversy surrounding the recent Univision Democratic Debate and English as our official language, do you think it is in the best interest of this country to pursue policy that, symbolically or otherwise, eschews multilingualism in favor of one "official language"? How can you justify policy that officially embraces monolingualism when our employers reward, and our national defense increasingly needs, a multilingual populace? Isn't it contradictory to expect our country to learn multiple languages, but tell us that English is the only one that matters?
Cafferty says: Learning to speak Arabic serves the national security of the United States. You're absolutely right about the pathetic presence of qualified linguists in Iraq. Speaking Spanish serves the convenience of an illegal alien population in this country numbering in the tens of millions. To me it's apples and oranges.
Tune in for a special edition of "The Cafferty File": Wednesday, September the 19th at 8pm EST on CNN
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hey Jack, I went to Barnes & Noble and bought your book the day it came out. I recommend it to everyone, It's a great read, right on the mark if you ask me. Tell the suits at CNN to take a poll, I'll bet most CNN watchers would say they want Jack to have his own show. I agree with you on everything. Thanks for saving me the trouble of writing a book myself ! I can't believe how dumbed down America is.
What's wrong with asking the QUESTION "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" Wouldn't we have been well served if we had asked a similar question of GENERAL Colin Powell when he was going to appear at the U.N.?
As Reagan used to say "Trust, but verify!"
This woman lies so often, lies just roll off her tongue. Here is Hillary's lie in the Yahoo Mashup debate - on the most important topic facing this country. This is no small matter, so listen up.
This is what she told Bill Maher:
"I believed that giving the president authority to go back to the United Nations and put in inspectors was an appropriate designation of authority.
Here is the truth, as reported by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta in The New York Times Magazine earlier this year:
"Clinton voted against an amendment to the war resolution that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton had gone on record as supporting -- and that she now says she had favored all along.
"The long-overlooked vote was on an amendment introduced by Carl Levin and several other Senate Democrats who hoped to rein in President Bush by requiring a two-step process before Congress would actually authorize the use of force. Senators knew full well the wide latitude that they were handing to Bush, which is why some tried to put the brakes on the march to war. The amendment called, first, for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed and, in Senator Levin's words, ''urge us to authorize a going-it-alone, unilateral resolution
How can she fool so many people so openly?
The 'do nothing' democratic congress.
Flip flop is a bad thing?
'The defination of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.'
----------
They did nothing like:
The dems did not pull out of all of the world treaties that have taken 55 years (longer on some) to agree and ratify by bi-party congresses.
The dems did not take the labor and environmental regulations out of the 'free trade' deals.
The dems did not stop regulations of corporate labor, safety and environmental laws.
The dems did not lock (literally) the minority out of their own conferences.
The dems did not allow torture, openly and fight the passing of law against it.
The dems did not expose covert CIA agents and then lie about it.
The dems did not corrupt the Justice system.
The dems didn't start preemptive perpetual wars based on lies.
The dems did not sit back and watch thousands of Americans drown, starve, and become homeless without
trying to save them, until it was too late.
At the ethics hearings, representatives of repub and dem 'think tanks', stated that they had never in their 20-30 years in public life had they ever seen such corruption.
As long as the dems had complete control, the EPA was doing it's job and improving many aspects of the environment, FEMA was doing their job and helping victims not corporations, regulations were in place to make corporations accountable for environment, work safety, public safety, and anti-trust, Social Security was in tact, the deficit was less than half of what it is now, the trade deficit was less than half of what it is now and we were on our way to a balanced budget, there were no wars, bleeding life and funds at a steady flow, we were respected by most of the world, and were working on education, medical, and infrastructure not world empire.
That alone, will keep me voting Dem and holding their 'feet to the fire'.
They have there hands on the oil in Iraq. A 30 year legislation to hand the oil over to BP Chevron Exxon and Shell so they can pump it till it makes them all sick. Kill troops to keep the oil flowing. Sick bastard.
Hillary is a Patriot because she knows she up against people with unlimited funds they just stole 59 trillion from us. She is running anyway.
Bush and his buddies think American are dumb enough to believe what he says. Hillary is going to reveal the truth when she gets in and I for one will be interested to hear how deep the traitors go.
Hillary is beholden to AIPAC res ipsa loquitor
They did 9/11 as much to give the right for preemptive strike for Russian and China benefit as to justify the preverse action to the American people.
They don't want Hillary because she is going to put her foot in there ass again just like Bill did but twice as bad.
Hillary is the only candidate who can walk on them like a cheap carpet and they know its coming. Get behind Hillary and get behind her I mean get behind her like we did FDR in WW2 the stakes are not less. They are equal we just had Pearl Harbor but our enemy is in the White House.
We rebuilt this nation and the mega rich couldn't stand it that is why we had FBIgate, travel gate, Lincoln room gate, whitewater gate, they had every king of accusation flying that could fly when there was not anything to accuse of why because they wanted to take control of our nation. Military wire taps and the whole nine yard for what 59 tillion dollar and the worlds oil reserves.
The Democrats are taking all the corrupt wealth and power in the United States it isn't just the Office of the President it is Big Oil and the War Complex which have been running this country since they kille JFK in 1963. We are in a war for our very constitution and America as the dream was stated.
How could anyone slam Hillary for anything. When Bill was in office we had peace and prosperity. We had the corruption machine in check and we had the best President to ever hold office bar none Bill Clinton.
Jack,
I think MoveOn.org has committed a major political blunder in its ad against General Patraeus ("General Betray Us") that recently appeared in The New York Times. Just compare that ad with the letter from the soldiers now serving with the 82nd Airborne in Iraq. That letter was profile in courage compared to the prank that MoveOn committed. And that tasteless attack will come back to bite the political elites at MoveOn on their asses in the next presidential election cyle.
I really don't think that the average working class or middle class voter in the heartland will make the fine distinction between the Petraeus ad and the letter from the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne.
All in all, a major political blunder, showing the people at MoveOn.org as throwing a hissy fit in front of the American people.
And I say this as a Vietnam veteran, who served as a medical corpsman, and came back bitterly against the war. I still remember hurrying through the concourse at the Seattle airport trying to catch a connecting flight to Cleveland, Ohio. As I passed a group of longhairs, they gave me the Nazi salute and shouted "Sieg Heil" at me. And I can still recall the humiliation and anger I felt as they laughed at my shocked expression. That's how the Petraeus ad felt to me, even though I opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq in the lead-up to the war.
Once again, history repeats itself.
IT WAS SO REFRESHING TO HEAR THE REAL , UNCENSORED OPINIONS OF A BRAVE JOURNALIST WHO WORKS FOR A NETWORK THAT HELPED SELL THE IRAQ WAR.
THANK YOU JACK. YOU ARE ONE HELL OF A DECENT HUMAN BEING.
P.S.
ATTENTION CNN
GET THIS MAN HIS OWN SHOW A.S.A.P. !!!!!!!!!!!
I like to keep things simple. So I wonder If new army recruits receive 30 days training before being sent to Iraq, why does it take 5 years to train an Iraqi?
I have read a lot of good, reasonable and some naive comments.
We should ask a few questions:
a) Who started this war?
b) what was the reason for this war?
c) who is profiting from this war?
d) who is dying in this war?
e) who is getting injured in this war?
f) who is having all the hardships caused by this war?
g) How many relatives of the members of the Senate and the House are in uniform and are actually fighting?
h) why is it impossible to withdraw from Iraq?
i) Is it because of the concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people?
After more than 55000 Americans lost their lives in Vietnam, some politicians finally had the courage to say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"
There simply are no easy answers, since Bush knocked "Humpty Dumpty Iraq" off its middle eastern wall. It won't go back together again, and now what is our responsibility--how much and to whom? We need an HONEST debate.
In this debacle, Bush & cohorts successfully turned logic as I learned (and for 25 years, taught it) on its ear. In propaganda terms, Bush & cohorts cluttered discussions with red herrings, straw men, nonsequiturs, vague generalities, and namecalling. They lied and repeatedly changed the subject when facts too obviously didn't fit.
Their aim seems to be a massive power grab, no matter what the long-term cost to the US.
Hey, Jack,
Good work, as usual. I can't wait to get my hands on your book. I live in Republican country so it might show up by the year 2010. Could you pass a note to the guy you referred to as Ron who loves what you do and wants to hear more from Mike Gravel?
Hmmm...las
"The next president will have to have the moral turpitude to make the right decisions.
I don't know what he said after that; I was laughing so hard I had to make an emergency pit stop.
Gramma Rose
Loading comments…
Posted September 12, 2007 | 01:01 PM (EST)