Richard Clarke puts "terrorist attacks will help my candidate" comments in their proper perspective

finally, somebody with the common sense and the proper qualifications to offer an intelligent critique weighs in on the total nonsense that's being bandied about out there...

from think progress...

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) distanced himself from chief strategist Charlie Black’s comments that a terrorist attack would be a “big advantage” to the McCain campaign. “If he said that, and I do not know the context, I strenuously disagree,” McCain told reporters.

Later in the day on MSNBC, former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke told Keith Olbermann that if McCain was serious in his outrage, he should fire Black immediately. He also criticized Black for basically encouraging terrorists such as Osama bin Laden to manipulate American politics.

speaking with keith olbermann, richard clarke nails charlie black and john mccain to the wall...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Olbermann on the FISA bill: "If anyone is soft on terror, it is Mr. Bush;" Glenn on the Dems "holding tough"

< sigh > so true...



glenn thinks the spin that the democrats didn't "cave" is pure b.s...

It seems rather clear what happened here. There are certain amendments that are not going to get even 50 votes -- including the Dodd/Feingold amendment to strip telecom immunity out of the bill -- and, for that reason, Republicans were more than willing to agree to a 50-vote threshold, since they know those amendments won't pass even in a simple up-or-down vote.

But then, there are other amendments which might be able to get 50 votes, but cannot get 60 votes -- such as Feinstein's amendment to transfer the telecom cases to the FISA court and her other amendment providing that FISA is the "exclusive means" for eavesdropping -- and, thus, those are the amendments for which the GOP insisted upon a 60-vote requirement.

The whole agreement seems designed to ensure that the GOP gets everything they want -- that they are able to defeat all of the pending amendments which Dick Cheney dislikes, and to do so without having to engage in a real filibuster. In what conceivable way is this an instance of "Dems not caving" or "holding tough?"

even richard clarke was moved to weigh in via an op-ed in today's nyt...

For this president, fear is an easier political tactic than compromise. With FISA, he is attempting to rattle Congress into hastily expanding his own executive powers at the expense of civil liberties and constitutional protections. . . .

In these still treacherous times, we can't afford to have a president who leads by manipulating emotions with fear, flaunting the law, or abusing the very inalienable rights endowed to us by the Constitution. Though 9/11 changed the prism through which we view surveillance and intelligence, it did not in any way change the effectiveness of FISA to allow us to track and monitor our enemies. FISA has and still works as the most valuable mechanism for monitoring our enemies.

what can we do except continue to scream our heads off to our congresspeople and to publish and disseminate the truth to counteract the endless torrent of lies...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

My impression of Todd Graves from yesterday's hearing

to me, the difference in watching the testimony of brad schlozman and todd graves at yesterday's senate judiciary committee hearing was night and day... schlozman, in full-tilt gonzo mode, with his "i don't recall" responses, delivered in his horribly irritating voice, with sweat dripping from his forehead, couldn't have been a greater contrast to graves' straightforward, totally professional, yet completely relaxed manner, leavened with what is an obviously solid sense of humor... i was reminded of watching patrick fitzgerald at the press conference where he announced the libby indictment... i actually got tears in my eyes because i was so moved, after all the spinning and evasion of officials in the bush coterie, to hear someone so thoroughly professional, honestly and candidly making a statement and responding to questions... now that i think of it, i had the same reaction watching richard clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission...

check out the contrasts between schlozman and the other three... it's dramatic...



Brad Schlozman on the ACORN indictments



Todd Graves on his investigation by the OIG



Patrick Fitzgerald on the Libby conviction



Richard Clarke apologizes to 9/11 families

three solid, professional, dedicated, constitution-respecting public servants, and one political hack loser...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

A strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place

wow...! i can't imagine a stronger message...

the dems' weekly radio address by ltg (ret) wm. odom...

[T]he President has let [Iraq] proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued.

"Thus, he lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies. The Congress is the only mechanism we have to fill this vacuum in command judgment.

"To put this in a simple army metaphor, the Commander-in-Chief seems to have gone AWOL, that is 'absent without leave.' He neither acts nor talks as though he is in charge. Rather, he engages in tit-for-tat games.

"Some in Congress on both sides of the aisle have responded with their own tits-for-tats. These kinds of games, however, are no longer helpful, much less amusing. They merely reflect the absence of effective leadership in a crisis. And we are in a crisis.

"Most Americans suspect that something is fundamentally wrong with the President's management of the conflict in Iraq. And they are right.

"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place. The war could never have served American interests.

here's what i wish would happen...

i wish odom, along with four or five of his retired general officer colleagues, would join with larry wilkerson, james baker, richard clarke, russ feingold, chuck hagel, john murtha, harry reid, nancy pelosi, hell, throw in lee iacocca too, to sit down with bush in the oval office and lay the cards on the table...

"look, george... it's over... iraq's over... your presidency is over... you've got a choice... you can either gracefully resign along with dick cheney, or we're going to bust our humps to remove you via impeachment... the country and the world can't put up with any more, george... we've had it..."

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments