Muscatine

Clinton Campaign Accused for the Second Time of Planting a Question at a Public Appearance
Sunday, November 11, 2007

By Major Garrett



Nov. 10: Hillary Rodham Clinton waves as she arrives at the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson Jackson Dinner in Des Moines.
SIOUX CITY, Iowa ?— For the second time in as many days, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has had to deal with accusations of planting questions during public appearances, FOX News has learned.

In a telephone interview Saturday, Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, said he was approached by Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler to ask a question about how she was standing up to President Bush on the question on funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline.

The encounter happened before an event hosted by Iowa State Sen. Gene Frais on a farm outside Fort Madison, Iowa.

Clinton's Iowa campaign confirmed that one of its staff discussed questions with Mitchell before her April 2 event, but denied attempting to plant a pro-Clinton question.

Mo Elliethee, spokesman for Clinton's campaign in Iowa, told FOX News that Hayler and Mitchell ''had a previous relationship'' and that a discussion about Clinton arose out of a normal conversation between two people who knew each other well.

''They had a previous relationship and were talking before the event and the topic of the senator's position on Iraq came up and Geoffrey said he had some questions,'' Elliethee said. ''Chris suggested Geoffrey ask a question.''

RelatedStories
Reporters Notebook: The Roar From Iowa Mitchell, however, said that he and Hayler did not know each other personally before the event.

''I had no previous relationship with him,'' said Mitchell. ''I knew his name and by name only as someone who worked for Senator Evan Bayh. But we didn't know each other and I had never met him before this event.''

Mitchell said the Clinton campaign wanted to contrast Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama who had recently said the president would probably prevail in the Iraq funding battle with Congress.

Mithell said he refused to ask the question.

''I told Chris I had other issues I wanted to raise with Senator Clinton,'' Mitchell said.

Asked what those were, Mitchell said, ''I wanted to ask her why she voted for the Iraq war and why she didn't consider that a mistake.''

Mitchell said Hayler, the Clinton campaign worker, was unhappy with his response and moved on to other audience members.

''I know he tried to have others ask that question,'' Mitchell said.

Asked if the Clinton campaign denied Mitchell's unequivocal assertion that Hayler tried to plant a question about Clinton trying to stand up to Bush on Iraq war funding, Elliethee declined.

''I'm not going to comment on what he said,'' said Elleithee said, referring to Mitchell. ''I'm going to discuss what our interpretation is. They had a previous relationship, the subject came up and there's nothing more to it than that. It's not newsworthy. It's innocent. It's not yesterday.''

That was a reference to Clinton's campaign admitting, first to FOX News, that it planted a question on global warming at a Newton, Iowa, event on Tuesday.

Click here to read a report on the Iowa incident.

Ultimately, Clinton took no questions from the crowd at the Fort Madison event that Mitchell attended. Elliethee said the campaign ran out of time to take questions.

Mitchell said he is an Obama supporter but cannot participate in the Iowa caucuses.

Mitchell is a minister in Hamilton and said he was reluctant to come forward because of the scrutiny he and his congregation might receive.

''But I thought this was important to get out and I want people to know what happened.''

When contacted by FOX News and read Clinton's interpretation of events, Mitchell said: ''I stand by my story completely.''

Pelosi's surrender date

Pelosi's surrender date
These are difficult days for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other politicians who have staked their political futures on an American defeat in Iraq. In the past 10 days alone, the mainstream media has reported the new reality: that the changes in military strategy instituted by Gen. David Petraeus are resulting in major improvements in the security situation there.


For example, the Associated Press reported: ''Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops. To many in Amariyah, it seems little short of a miracle.'' According to The Washington Post: ''The number of attacks against U.S. soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of sectarian killing...The death toll for American troops in October fell to 39, the lowest level since March 2006.'' And on Thursday, the New York Times noted: ''American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood in Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned.''



Responding to the good news, Mrs. Pelosi has unveiled her newest legislative strategy to damage the war effort: House Democrats this week will try to enact a bill calling for immediately beginning to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, with a goal of completing the pullout in one year (in other words, announcing a date to surrender Iraq to the very jihadists that coalition forces are defeating on the battlefield right now.) The surrender language will be attached to a four-month, $50 billion funding package for the war in Iraq, roughly one quarter of the funding requested by President Bush. The president, in all likelihood, will be forced to veto this irresponsible bill, which will once again jeopardize funding for the troops.



The contrast could hardly be any more striking: American soldiers perform heroically and successfully, risking their lives on the battlefield in Iraq. Mrs. Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, by contrast, look for new ways to advertise American weakness to the enemy -? in effect, to tell al Qaeda in Mesopotamia that if it can hold out against U.S. forces for another year, ''progressive'' politicians in Washington will deliver the votes to ensure that Iraq becomes a jihadist colony.

Hate to say it but-

I see nothing wrong with ''planting'' someone to ask a specific question that Hillary wanted to be sure was asked.
Did I just agree with (gag) Hillary?