I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Frist?
I'm sure Frist used the floor of the Senate, where Senators are immune from libel and slander I think, so Clarke wouldn't sue his ass and take his family's HMO away from him.
Richard Clarke is an evil liberal spy that wormed his way into the white house in order to disparage the good name of our glorious leader who fearlessly took on the Al Qaeda hordes with one hand tied behind his back and beat them all into smithereens that just blow in the wind like the wind that is in Richard Clarke when he spews out his evil lies.
Second? Here's a repeat of the e-mail I sent my Sen. Bill about an hour ago:
Dear Sen. Frist:
Leak, smear, and spin: The typical cycle of the Republican Smear Machine uses against the Bush Administration's critics. Shame on your advocacy of the "de-classification" of material just to smear Richard Clarke. Please don't wait until 2006 to retire from the Senate. Leave now. You're an embarrassment to the Volunteer State.
OOPS! I guess it should be fourth.
I think Frist was just floating a trial balloon to get the wingnuts thinking that Clarke must be a liar. There is no way the Whitehouse - that has tried so very hard to protect itself from the truth - wants to declassify all the Clarke testimony and evidence. They are tilting at windmills with this.
I think I've figured this out, finally. One would think that, if one were the Bush Administration, one would--assuming one can--refute Clarke's charges, or admit to not having sufficiently concerned with the threat of al-Qaida before 11 September, and apologize, and move on. But the White House has built up a myth about the President as "warrior" and simply does not want the discussion raised again. Any reconsideration can only hurt the White House, suggest it's fallible, and accountable. When the audience turns its attention to this issue, the White House can only lose. So it screams with indignation whenever the someone points in its direction.
right. agreed. plus if this gets declassified we get a window into how the WH demands spin from its employees, and how much said spin veers away from the truth.
plus, i assume clarke is ready for such an eventuality. and damn, he's good. they won't follow through.
now: where'd that debunked yellowcake memo come from?
Just back from 3 weeks in China where the first I saw of Clarke's testimony was on BBC Today in Hong Kong day before yesterday (still not even sure what day today is). Holy guacamole! Can this really be as explosive as it looked at first glance? I was blown away by what I saw - but then the BBC commentator said he did'nt believe the story would have legs, and that it would blow over in a few days and the Chimperor would survive unscathed. We'll see.
Not long after seeing the first report of Clarke, they cut away to a LIVE showing of Flightsuit AWOL telling his regrettable jokes about missing WMD to the press and assembled pols. More than once, they cut away to Lieberman laughing his ass off. My jaw hung open in shock. Disgraceful, disgusting, and despicable. What a callous, ignorant fuck that man is.
Well the alternative is that Dear Leader is a liar and if Frist or any other GOP Drone were to say such a thing their pain chips would explode.
Richard A. Clarke is an Al Qaida terrorist cell that infiltrated our government 30 years ago with the goal of placing himself in the White House on 911 - really.
Thank you Atrios for repeating this post. I was amazed when I heard about it yesterday, amazed when I saw in on the news, and amazed again as I search, somewhat unsucessfully, for media comprehension of how historic yesterday was.
I cannot recall a more outrageous performance by a Senator since McCarthy. This trumps Lott by a mile.
Slightly off topic: was in Philly last week and got to see some of the Bush ads we don't get in Connecticut. Wow. If I had to see them everytime I turned on the t.v., I would be even angrier than I am already.
Pain chips? Is that why their faces contort while they are speaking? I thought it was really, really tight underwear.
Great post!
The Rich piece is indeed rich!
What can we do about it.
Where are the real journalists..
we are just left with foxford clones
Not long after seeing the first report of Clarke, they cut away to a LIVE showing of Flightsuit AWOL telling his regrettable jokes about missing WMD to the press and assembled pols. More than once, they cut away to Lieberman laughing his ass off. My jaw hung open in shock. Disgraceful, disgusting, and despicable. What a callous, ignorant fuck that man is.
I mean Chimpy, of course, though Lieberman gets no respect from me at all.
On that same topic, did anyone else notice when Preznit Dickbrain finished each of his "jokes," he worked his mouth and jaw like old Walter Brennan or Slappy White? What is up with that? Chewing his cud? Gumming his Skoal?
BTW - since I'm OT anyway - the Chinese gov't. has firewalls that don't allow most people with Internet access to read blogs like this one (or anything on angelfire, geocities or the like). So I was sorely deprived of Atrios and all the other good political sites the whole time I was in China! (I could get Salon.com, though - but still, it was tough going without my daily fix!)
BushCo is so down far the shithole they don't even have their bearings anymore. Condi on 60 Minutes tomorrow? They want more sunshine on that liar? And once again, not under oath?
Bring. It. On.
Desperation doesn't even begin to explain what we're seeing . . .
on cspan wash journal this morning, the repub callers were goin bananas.
one caller said that Condi was a "national treasure" & "the best thing that ever happened to america".
now thats just nuts.
i mean, sure, i understand, defend her all you want....but "the best thing that ever happened to america" ?!?!?!?!?
I see the brownshirts are backing off the "perjury" line:
Key Republicans in Congress want to declassify 2002 testimony by former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, hoping to show discrepancies between his recent criticisms of the Bush administration and positive remarks he made as a White House aide... He said he was not accusing Clarke of perjury.
However, I think this is what they're really after:
In a sharply worded speech, Frist said Clarke was "the only common denominator" across 10 years of terrorist attacks that began with the first attack on the World Trade Center, a bombing in an underground parking garage in 1993 that killed six people.
What a bunch of repellant fucking thugs. Blame everyone but themselves. If there's anyone with a shred of decency left in this bunch, they better stand up now, or else you'll be in the war crimes docket when the Kerry administration takes over.
Also bears repeating from Rich's article:
As for the embedded journalists who filled in the rest of the story, a candid assessment was delivered by Lieutenant Colonel Rick Long, the former head of media relations for the Marine Corps, speaking at the Berkeley symposium: "Frankly, our job is to win the war. Part of that is information warfare." He added: "So we are going to attempt to dominate the information environment...Overall, we were very happy with the outcome."
If anybody missed this yesterday, it bears repeating. From the mountaintops . ..
>>>>Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Rice told the commission that she misspoke; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies and Clarke had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.
Yeah. 60 Minutes is going to be a good thing for you, Dr. Rice. You're either a self-admitted incompetent, or a loathful lying hack. Which do you want it to be?
Billmon at the Whiskey Bar has the goods on Frist. It turns out that Frist went ballistic on the Dems so-called attempt to politicize the Senate Select Committee in Dec. 2003. Here is the money quote from Frist:
For a quarter-century there has been a consensus in the Senate that the committee's nonpartisan tradition must be carefully safeguarded. Nothing else is acceptable. Why? Because this committee deals with information that is unique, that is privileged information, because of the dangerous and sensitive nature of the subject matter for which the Intelligence Committee ... has unique oversight.
What a hypocrite!
http://tinyurl.com/2ncpx
.
on cspan wash journal this morning, the repub callers were goin bananas.
Like the moronic brownshirt fucks that flood these boards, the answer is simple: they're paid shills.
Maybe Daschle could make it 4 days in a row. I suggest that he propose that Sen Frist be censured.
Since Frist used the well of the Senate Floor to make a charge that he later admitted was made up out of his ass, isn't this a censurable offense?
Frist waits til he is off the floor to admit it. He is immune to slander/libel charges when he lies in chamber. He knows that. So quietly, he admits he is full of shit, when he is outside, liable for damages.
This is our moment to consider the strategy of the choosing of the Democratic VP nominee.
While we are all sure that the Kerry Campaign is hard at work on just that task, given the past 1-2 weeks of utterly destructive blows to the bush regime, the question of a Kerry/McCain ticket should now be brought up again.
Yes, Edwards who ran a campaign to be proud of would be an excellent running mate but would he not prove to be an even better attorney general instead?
Frist of all, while it's a stretch, given the severe divisiveness we are witnessing in America there is ample anecdotal evidence, namely in conversations I and others have had, where people are now openly regretting that McCain lost the nomination to the boy chimp. It is more clear that this ticket would provide the single largest route in American Presidential politics.
I for one as a registered Democrat would be all for it as I am sure many others would.
Now this is not to say that there are problems inherent in such a choice, namely the deep ideological differences on say abortion and gay marriage (the latter not being as wide, perhaps)...But the effect such a ticket would have on the entire nation in terms of it coming together would be more than enough to signal that the "tone" set by this outlaw regime in Washington, from the bitter partisanship and secrecy to the lack thereof when it involved the support of the regime's tactics and policies is tearing the country apart. Dividing it, not uniting it as the fearless leader proclaimed.
I dunno, but I thought at this time, right now, given all that has happened in just 1 or 2 weeks is overwhelming. The regime is reeling and cannot stop the blood-letting..For it is self-inflicted!
This is our chance. The time is now.
Where is John Kerry?
We are in the midst of the most conspicious event of the election season, Richard Clarke’s appearance befor ethe 9/11 Commision and the Bush Administration’s Normandy Invasion counter attack against him, and Kerry seems to be sitting on the sidelines.
Now Bill Frist is threatening Clarke with perjury charges.
And what does Kerry have to say?
Nothing.
John Kerry told us that is is a fighter. Where’s the fight?
He should go to the Senate floor and denounce Frist as the lying demagogue he is.
God-fearing, mouth-breathing, southern, white, GOP-votin', American males are #cheering# a lying, learned African-American female???
We've come a long way, baby!
So, Condi goes before God and the nation and tells blatant lies about what the administration knew about threats from airplanes? If anyone needs to be put under oath and held accountable for her statements, it's her. No excuses, no "mispeaking".
She's only the fucking national security advisor fercryinoutloud.
"On that same topic, did anyone else notice when Preznit Dickbrain finished each of his "jokes," he worked his mouth and jaw like old Walter Brennan or Slappy White? What is up with that? Chewing his cud? Gumming his Skoal?"
I believe he may be reacting to the foul taste of bile backing up in his system.
It is't necessary for Kerry to say anything -- sometimes silence is enough
It is necessary for the media to fact check...
OK OK!! Truth be told I don't know what the hell happened on 911. I was heavily medicated and in the WH basement bombshelter. The doctors advised me to remain heavily medicated forever to guard against the unbearable shame that would flood my being if I ever actually started thinking again. There you have it.
The funny thing with Condi's refusal to testify is this: The common thing for conservatives to say is that if you have nothing to hide, you need not worry about government intrusion into your business. Her refusal to testify can't be sitting well with the base.
Alan,
And what does Kerry have to say?
Nothing.
actually something
"My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if (Clarke) is not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury because he is under oath."
Rethugs are still pushing the 'We're going to declassify Clarke and show him to be the liar that he really is!' meme. Its just a manufactured ploy for 2 minute spots on the cable whore channels featuring the words 'Clarke' and 'Perjury' in the same sentence.
Just sat through two showings on MSNBC regarding this, and yes, the media is devolving the whole episode into a 'he-said-she-said' argument. According to them, its all because 'Clarke lambasted the Bush Junta on the War on Terra'. No mention of what Clarke is actually saying though.
Atrios, as one of the premiere bloggers, you should put up some paragraphs from Clarke's book from time to time, to keep the focus on the real issue.
Frist is the biggest fucking hypocrite. He accuses Clarke of being a "disgrace to his government" for "profiteering" of 9/11 for his new book.
What Frist forgets is that he was the guy who, as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, advanced his own political fortunes by hawking pictures of Bush aboard Air Farce One for $150.
Oops, here is the third time I've heard this 'declassify' meme from MSNBC in the past hour.
Now were hearing from Mike Allen (WaPo) who is in Crawford.
Jack -- not the worst idea of all time, although McCain has publicly disavowed it. But I'm still thinking Wes Clark. (Wesley, Ramsey, Richard -- too damn many Clark/es to keep straight....) With their combined service records, Clark's international experience, and inside knowledge of what the real world is like, I think they'd blow Bush & Dick out of the water.
Then I'm thinking Dean for head of EPA -- we need a real fighter, and give him some serious enforcement power over polluters -- and, as you suggest, Edwards as AG. First case: War crimes against the entire fucking Bush Administration.
"John Kerry told us that is is a fighter. Where’s the fight?"
It's an old Lee Atwater strategy used against Dukakis - never interrupt your opponent while he is self-distructing.
Both Pelosi and Bob Graham, who, unlike Frist, are on the intelligence committee, have said they remember no real differences in Clarke's story.
I think Frist was pushed into this by the White House, and didn't have a clue what he was talking about.
one caller said that Condi was a "national treasure" & "the best thing that ever happened to america".
Simpsons flashback:
Homer: So, do you think I have a case?
Lionel Hutz: I don't use the word "hero" very often -- but you are the greatest hero in American history.
Alan,
Bad idea politically. There are plenty of volunteers to lob those verbal bombs on behalf of Kerry right now. Tom Daschle, for one, is doing great work these days on hammering these losers. Right now Kerry needs to be presenting programs full of hope and positive ideas to the American public to contrast with the lying Keystone Kops/mafiosa image that Bush/Rove/Cheney and Rice are displaying to all to see.
If you want to refute sworn testimony, Condi, you do it with sworn testimony.
The end.
Unfortunately, given the state of the news media, it is the accusation, not the later retraction, that makes news.
Hey Generik:
If the Bush Boy is Preznit Dickbrain would it make sense to describe Cheyney as a dick with ears?
Summary: Frist "has told two entirely different stories".
I think someone needs to put together an Uggabugga-esque timeline comparing what they say happened versus what really happened. Something nice and simple and copiously illustrated so that even the most moronic chimp-fan can comprehend it right before his head explodes.
Imagine yourself as a member of the Bush administration who in the future is asked to either brief (i.e., spin) the press on background about some controversial policy or to testify under oath (i.e., spin) on background before a congressional committee.
With its behavior toward Clarke, the Bush White House has now demonstrated a willingness to strip you of the protection of anonymity after the fact should it suit its political needs. It has shown itself willing to expose you as a liar - lies that you told on THEIR behalf, lies you told to protect them.
Are you going to be willing to spin like a top under those conditions, knowing that you could end up betrayed and twisting in the wind to suit White House needs?
Methinks not. The White House surely knows that, but such is the level of desperation under Clarke that they are willing to take this tack anyway.
Panic, sheer panic.
Frank Rich deserves some turkee for that one...anyone have his email?
And McCain for VP? no, no, no. wrong direction that wd bolster Nader's charge of no difference btwn the parties. Have you checked McCain's stand on a women's right to choose?
For VP we need the Dr. in there to maintain Kerry's spinal implant, and to throw some crumbs to the activist base.
I've got a proposal: Nobody in the media interview Condi unless and until she swears, on camera, to tell the truth first.
That'll close that little "perjury" loophole quickly, won't it?
>>>"John Kerry told us that is is a fighter. Where’s the fight?"
"John Kerry told us that is is a fighter. Where’s the fight?"
John Kerry has stated he is currently reading the book, and will reserve comment on it until he has actually finished it.
This might serve as a model for some people who would make allegations before examining the facts. (take that Mr. Frist.
You can only keep a leaky "war hero" bullshit balloon afloat for so long. W's mocking of our war casualties was a self-inflicted puncture that should send this weapon of mass inflation into its final death spiral.
If the Bush Boy is Preznit Dickbrain would it make sense to describe Cheyney as a dick with ears?
Well, if the condom fits...
Actually, Cheney has always reminded me of the old Nixon slogan we used back in the '70s: Dick Nixon (or Cheney) before he Dicks you!
Maybe we can amend that to Frist Bill before he Frists you! ...?
Hmmm... needs work...
again... You have to ask yourself why.
Why are these people so obsessed with lying? Why are they so frantic to keep you misinformed?
With each onion skin that gets unwrapped the more it's starts to stink.
cornfed hick lots of interesting points and comments today.
I say if the rethugs want to bring perjury charges against Clarke, go right ahead. He will have defense lawyers and I am sure as part of his defense some of the many comments, statements, and stories told in the media by Condi-lie-za Rice including her upcoming 60 minutes interview will certainly be a part his defense. I think the track record of Condi's and this Administration's statements both in public and private are probably a defense lawyers dream come true. Bring em on.
Frist has opened the floodgates.
Check out the lede from the AP story, posted as the top story on Yahoo news:
GOP Seeks to Show Clarke Discrepancies
Key Republicans in Congress want to declassify 2002 testimony by former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, hoping to show discrepancies between his recent criticisms of the Bush administration and positive remarks he made as a White House aide.
[emphasis added]
Congressional Republicans: Gone fishin'.
Starr Jones: I'm sure Frist used the floor of the Senate, where Senators are immune from libel and slander I think, so Clarke wouldn't sue his ass and take his family's HMO away from him.
HCA is not an HMO, nor a pharma firm -- it's the largest chain of for-profit hospitals on Planet Earth.
.
again... You have to ask yourself why.
Why are these people so obsessed with lying? Why are they so frantic to keep you misinformed?
Three words: Knowledge is power.
With each onion skin that gets unwrapped the more it's starts to stink.
Guy | Email | Homepage | 03.27.04 - 11:37 am | #
Yeah, but just think of how delicious it is to all the senses as it slowly starts to fry....
There are two recurring themes in the administration's defense:
1. that "they only had 7 months in office" before 9-11 and the Clinton Admin. had 8 years.
2. that Clinton (and Clarke) presided over 8 years of Al Qaeda attacks from the 1993 WTC to the Cole.
Left unsaid in all their BS is that the 1993 WTC attack happened 30 DAYS into Clinton's administration, yet they didn't go around BLAMING Bush 1. No other terror attacks "on the homeland" (I hate that word) during his administration (except OK City, done by god-fearing 'mericans). Also, the Cole happened in October 2000. Had the administration responded militarily just before an election, he would have been eviscerated by the right for playing politics, had he done so after the election, he would have been eviscerated by the right for being a lame-duck president trying to "pad his legacy"
Also left unsaid when they run through all the terrorist attacks that happened around the world during Clinton's (and Clarke's) time in office is that since 9-11 there have been numerous attacks that have happened around the world that have targeted, and killed Americans and our allies. If they want to get into a laundry list of Al Qaeda activity divided by years in office, I think that's a losing proposition for the sitting administration
Why not declassify the Congressional 911 report, while they're declassifying:
Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, also wants to see more information disclosed. She said that includes 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's report addressing the involvement of a foreign government in supporting some of the 19 hijackers - an item of dispute with the Bush administration.
"This is selective declassification, in my view, and it is all about discrediting an administration critic," Harman said.
OT: Proffered Figleaf for George Bush No. 264
Hopeful Italian Prime Minister candidate Romano Prodi's statement on "appeasing the terrorists."
With regard to Iraq and to those who would ask what the decision of a future Ulivo government would be, whether Italy would remain in Iraq, I would say that we would have never given our consent to participate in the war in Iraq at the outset. A war which - as we all know - was and continues to be a downhill slide filled with death and sorrow. A war which should never have been started and against which Europe as a people expressed its opposition...
If starting today or tomorrow our party would assume the reins of power and we had to decide whether to withdraw, we would decide to end our commitment. The occupation of Iraq is the continuation of an unjustified and illegitimate war and is not obviously capable of bringing peace and stability to Iraq.
However, we see before us mob violence, civil war and terrorism of every kind. We find ourselves in a situation where the intervention of the international community is justified and indispensable. Intervention which would be primarily humanitarian, deployed to defend the civilian population and to rebuild and to create institutional structures, but that must be necessarily armed and prepared to use force. The condition necessary for such an intervention is, obviously, the approval of the United Nations.
Our position cannot be understood as appeasing the terrorists.
From USA Today, two insiders' takes on the release of the August 2002 backgrounder to Jim Angle, Faux News White House correspondent:
CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante, who was in the briefing, backs Angle in that regard. "If he held on to the tape, God bless him," Plante said. "I wish my records were that good."
NBC's Andrea Mitchell, also there in 2002, said Angle was "right to pursue the story. Whether he played into the White House's agenda is another story."
I am the other Alan that posts here. I think Kerry is smart to stay on the edge of this as much as possible, since any pursuit of the truth would be painted "partisan" on his part.
What I would be curious to see is how the White House reacts to Kerry's challenge of a debate, which will come eventually. Would Bush dare to face him, after all the holes that have been punctured in Bush's "area of strength?"
My God. I'm really beginning to believe it. I'm beginning to think that, if we really start coordinating things across the country, tying the horrendous evil, blatant lying, personal attacks, greed, power-hunger, and general ineptitude to BushCo's supporters... if we can put it into sound bites that'll penetrate the national malaise...
We may just be able to take our country back, and get the GOP the fuck out of here.
Probably not so much a trial balloon as the typical SCLM Pravda ballet. Smear on front page. Retraction on Page 17.
If that bunch was subjected to a "Survivor" thingie where you got voted off the island by being caught in a lie then I am sure Clarke would be the last one standing...
Nancy Richardson - Good one. Kerry doesn't need to come out swinging on this right now. I really think that the right way to proceed is the way he is going. It reduces the partisanship from our side.
And the more the WH politicizes this, the worse it looks for them.
If Congress is going to start prosecuting people for perjury, why don't we start with some of that testimony about WMD that was given before the war? How about Rumsfeld for starters? Wolfowitz? They can't have thought this thing through. They are just inviting more of Clarke's colleagues to quit and come to his defense. You know, the ones who cleared his book without telling the political people.
Can anyone explain WHY congress is immune from libel and slander for things said on the floor of the house or senate?
Is it just to allow them to lie for political purposes?
Has this always been the case, or was it instituted sometime after the first continental congress. I'd like someone in congress to explain why they require immunity?
CON-ME-leezza Rice once
shame on........shame on.......you
CON-ME-leezza Rice twice
........well....we wont get fooled again.
Good People Beget a Sniveling Dicklick
Can anyone explain WHY congress is immune from libel and slander for things said on the floor of the house or senate?
Is it just to allow them to lie for political purposes?
Has this always been the case, or was it instituted sometime after the first continental congress. I'd like someone in congress to explain why they require immunity?
"Dick Nixon (or Cheney) before he Dicks you!"
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Now I have to go write more WMD jokes for the Bush Boy.
Congressional immunity is in the Constitution.
I think Frist has done Clarke a favor. He keeps the story going, and Clarke has nothing real to worry about.
It's just a thermonuclear threat, as J. Marshall points out.
Can anyone explain WHY congress is immune from libel and slander for things said on the floor of the house or senate?
Is it just to allow them to lie for political purposes?
Has this always been the case, or was it instituted sometime after the first continental congress. I'd like someone in congress to explain why they require immunity?
They threatened O'Neill and Ron Suskind, who wrote The Price of Loyalty, with misuse of secret documents.
It's the (Republican) rule of law, you know.
When Gov Keane asked Richard Clarke if he could have stopped 9/11 tragedy, if he could do everything he wanted to do, Clarke answered with an unqualified "no".
I suspect deep down he knew he could have. He said we could have at least zeroed in on two of the hijackers.
I am pretty sure Clarke could have, if he got everything he asked for.
My scenario goes like this. Clarke said during the Millennium threat, Clinton asked them to go into battlestation mode and meet everyday and shake the trees. Clarke said that it worked. And he wanted to go into millinnium mode in summer, 01. And I think Tenet also wanted to do that.
Okay, so in summer 01, starting in July/Aug, if they were in battlestation mode, with all the principals/directors met every day, shaking trees, Clarke or someone would have asked these questions related to planes:
How would they get on planes for hijacking? (Let us run down on people flying firstclass/biz class, that don't belon gin there. Somewhat racist and class-conscious, but that's okay for my argument.)
How will they buy tickets? (Let us run down on those buying with cash.)
How will they buy tickets? (Let us run down on those buying one-way tickets.)
Put it all together and bingo! You got them.
Don't you all think Clarke is smart enough to go on this logic train?
Condi is telling the truth.
Trust me.
When have I deceived you before?
-
>Can anyone explain WHY congress is immune from libel and slander for things said on the floor of the house or senate?
Because the people's representatives must be free to attack the rich and powerful, and the interests that would grind an individual to dust should they have the chance.
Sorry for the multiple posts, I'm a new poster here.
How do I refresh the page without re-posting?
Is there an easier way to refresh without right-clicking and choosing refresh?
I guess I'm a little blog-post illiterate.
Stirling that was a good one.
Here's an idea for Condi Rice. She could go before the 9-11 Commision and repeat -- under oath and in public -- the stuff she's been saying on the talk shows all week. No White House secrets get blown, since she's already said it all publically . . . How 'bout it, Condi?
Didn't think so.
i say declassify all of it. and by the way, why was it classified to begin with? my best guess is that it is damaging to bushco. i would just say don't let them decide what parts get declassified. all or nothing.
"Good People Beget a Sniveling Dicklick"
AugDog 03.27.04 - 11:50 am
Thanks AugDog. I've been trying all morning to remember the name of Frist's book.
Contrast the support chimpie is getting from the right wing press and members of Congress now against the support(or lack thereof) that Clinton got for a blow job back in '98. Frist threatens Clarke with perjury charges, although he has to retreat with an hour. Think back to that fuckin' Lieberman denouncing Clinton on the Senate floor. At the heart of the Clinton controversy: a blow job. At the heart of the chimpie controversy: 3,000 dead.
For years now, I have been saying the Dems are in an 'Eastern Front' war with the repukes. No holds barred. Take no prisoners and kill the wounded. The events of the past week only strengthen my belief.
ARGH,
After posting, go back (type Backspace or click the Back button) then refresh.
"Good People Beget a Sniveling Dicklick"
is that an anagram?
Let the Rethuglicans twist slowly in the wind all Spring and Summer.
Then all Kerry has to do is step up to the podium and say something rational in a calm clear voice.
ALL they had to do to stop 9/11 if they had warnings of hijackings was release a public statement about "warnings about hijackings".
Yes, it would have cost the airlines a lot of money, but so what? Should people not be warned?
Or did they MAKE that call in August when they warned Ashcroft not to fly commerical?
If they did, they will be lucky to escape office unindicted, IMO.
I think that Clarke's testimony should be declassified.
I also think that those TWENTY-EIGHT pages from the congressional report that dealt with Saudi Arabia's role on the attack on the US on 911. Remember those pages? The ones classified by the White House?
From The Nation:
Remember too that it was well known that Saudi charities with ties to the royal House of Saud were bankrolling the Al Qaeda operation in Afghanistan--even as George H.W. Bush visited the kingdom shortly after his son was elected, eager to secure contracts for his then-employer, the Carlyle Group.
The fact is, Riyadh, unlike Baghdad, has long been a key hotbed of extremist Muslim organizing. By shielding and nurturing our relationship with the Saudi sheiks, Bush & Son have provided cover for those who support terror.
After all, is it really likely that career-conscious FBI and CIA officers would be willing to criticize possible Al Qaeda-House of Saud links when the President's father is out hustling business ties with the same family?
This needs to be the new cry:
DECLASSIFY THE TWENTY-EIGHT PAGES!!
Lehman just tried to make Clarke a distraction --what an a------ he is
and Fredrika Whitfield what a jerk
she lives in some alternate universe
Flatulus:
Frist wrote a mastubatory about his good Suthun family titled "Good People Beget Good People"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obido...092154?
v=glance
CNN is still carrying the original Frist comment without the backtrack
what's the point of the being a 24/7 news station you aren't accurate and up to date. Unless of course you wish to reflect a certain bias or perhaps cheap and lazy is the answer
This much is very clear: Bush had plenty of warnings, and he didn't do everything he could have to stop the attacks.
That's what they are so desperately covering up. If the public at large ever finds this out, this administration will finally be seen for what it is-- the worst bunch of traitors in our history.
The spectacle:
on the one hand we have the man who did not run for cover when the planes were raining from the skies, the man who sat in the White House situation room when everyone else ran--
--this man gets up and apologizes to the families of the victims, who tearfully embrace him afterwards.
And the Republicans slam him for it. The Republicans, who have never apologized. "He doesn't have the authority to apologize"--and those who do, haven't.
And to top it off, the President gets on his hands and knees, clowning about WMDs.
Jesus H. Rodriguez, do they know what they're looking like?
OT:
The LA Times today has an editorial that we need to lighten up about Bush's WMD jokes. If you feel otherwise, perhaps a letter to the editor would be nice.
I haven't heard anyone ask this question before:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0136147.../03/
27.html#a20
There are those Bush supporters - smart and dumb, religious and secular - who will forgive him all his trespasses because they believe that we are at a fork in the road in human history. There are many "intelligent" hawks who think that radical islam will never understand rational discussion, so it must be crushed with military force. These people still support the war in Iraq, perhaps with the thought, "You gotta start somewhere." They believe that invading Iraq caused Libya and Qaddafi to stand down. They believe in the long run, this makes sense.
They see this as a battle between the overlords of the East and West, that must ultimately occur regardless of the short run cost in little peoples' lives.
Anyway, this is the sense I get when I lurk on the "smart" rightwinger boards. Which I try not to do very often, except to try and understand how anyone intelligent could go for Bush.
Just like we need to lighten up about the GOP's third-world election tactics in 2000 (I still get sick to my stomach when I see a photo of those GOP congressional aides mobbing that ballot counting session in Florida)
Light Bush joke:
Search Google for "bush's foreign friends" and hit the 'Feeling Lucky' button.
The ferocity and the breadth of the Republican attack on Clarke signifies more I think than just the perception that Clarke is damaging the President's competence on national security.
I'm beginning to believe that they see Clarke's accusations as cutting to the very core of what makes it possible for ALL Republicans to win elections: the notion that it is they, the "Daddy Party", who know how to handle matters of national defense. After all, the failure to take seriously the threat of terrorism, and the failure of the Iraq war to make us safer, are not just Bush's personal mistakes. They are the mistakes of the REPUBLICAN establishment and its neocon philosophy. The attacks of Clarke demonstrate convincingly that the most basic principles and methods that Republicans bring to the table are a DISASTER for Americans, not a solution to our problems.
I can think of no other explanation for the total ungluing of the Right that we now see before us.
Just to add a further point to my previous post, there's another way that the Republican "Daddy Party" meme is coming undone in this election.
That is the robust display of Democratic war heroes against the Republican chickenhawk brigade.
After all, who would be the Daddy there?
Alan: The most logical argument I have heard for Kerry laying low is that if he jumped in, it would give the WH an opening to push the "Clarke is a partisan" meme.
RE: VP choice
I think Wes Clark would be a good choice. He made my favorite statement during the campaign. When asked if he was a liberal, he responded "Of course, I'm an American." He then recounted a litany of reasons why being an American makes one a liberal. Absolutely spot-on.
Selah.
tinheart,
Of course, FBI agent John O'Neil did try to push the Saudi/ al qaeda connection relentlessly. Of course, the FBI had to pull him out of this gig and he then retired in frustration. In the strangeness that is human life, he had just started his new job as security director for the WTC when he died on 9/11.
Don't know why everyone missed Kerry's responce to Frist's Clarke accusations-
Kerry challenges Bush to prosecute Clarke if former anti-terrorism advisor lied
NEW YORK (AFP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) challenged President George W. Bush (news - web sites) to prosecute former national security aide Richard Clarke if they can show that he lied about terrorism policy
"My challenge to the Bush administration would be, if (Clarke) is not believable and they have reason to show it, then prosecute him for perjury because he is under oath, Kerry told CBS's MarketWatch.
"They have a perfect right to do that," said Kerry.
Republicans in Congress want to declassify testimony Clarke gave before Congress in 2002 that they claim is at odds with accounts critical of the administration in the aide's recently published book.
Clarke, a counter-terrorism advisor to three presidents, published a book this week entitled "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," in which he claims the Bush administration failed to heed warnings of the September 11, 2001 attacks and then focused its attention on Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) rather than al-Qaeda.
He repeated the allegations under oath in testimony before a congressional committee.
The charges prompted an aggressive response from the White House, amid apparent concerns that they could undermine the president's re-election bid in November.
Stirling - I sure have been enjoying your comments the last few days - thanks for hanging around.
Bush made a disgraceful spectacle of cowardice and inaction on September 11, 2001. He knows it, everyone around him knows it. Never mind what he did or didn't do prior to the attacks - when it all came down, he was once again absent without leave. And then tried to sell the nation that steaming pile of bullshit about AF1 being in danger. Yeah, right. Just like Alabama was in danger so he had to go AWOL and leave Texas for Alabama as fast as he could.
They're all liars. They are all incompetent. They don't give a shit about anything but power and their agenda. They are the most dangerous bunch who have ever been in office in this country. We either get rid of them, or we lose America for good.
bystander,
I think Clarke was refering to the so-called "plan" when he said that nothing in it could have prevented 9/11 even if the plan would have been pursued urgently.
I think he distinguishes the larger "plan" from being on day-to-day "battle stations" and doing the hard police work of tracking terrorists and putting pieces together.
If everyone was at Clinton-era "battle stations" during the summer of 2001,Clarke says, 9/11 may have been prevented. The questions directed to him during his testimony, however, didn't focus on this aspect.
Good piece in the WaPo for a change this morning:
This piece from Clark's testimony:
"And the reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because by invading Iraq . . . the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."
The furious charge and countercharge between Clarke and the White House last week has largely obscured this central complaint by Clarke. The commission investigating the 2001 attacks is not charged with probing this question, so little of the public testimony in recent days dwelled on Iraq. Politically, however, it is potentially just as important for Bush to deal with that assertion as it is for him to address the claim that he was not properly focused on the al Qaeda threat in the first eight months of his presidency.
Clarke, in his book, echoes other accounts, such as Ron Suskind's book on former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill, that key administration officials appeared unduly focused on Iraq in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks -- and then leapt to the conclusion that Iraq was somehow involved.
How was Frist able to accuse Clarke of perjury in his Senate speech, referring to specific testimony from July 2002, if, as he later claimed when he backtracked, he hadn't seen the testimony?
Either he is lying about seeing the testimony, or he is lying about not seeing it.
Anyone watching CNN today? Did one of the commissioners speaking on CNN all but say that the commission is going to subpoena Rice to testify?
I guess my previous postings were Anonymous. Anyway, has anyone yet come across any response from Clarke yet?
I also thought it quite revealing that Pappa Powell gave Clarke some love last night on the News Hour when he more or less stood up for him. (At least as much as was possible.) Why does he tease us so?
tinheart, yes, yes, and yes.
Bob Graham, who is truly one of the heroes of this whole process, has been pushing relentlessly for the declassification of the 28 (or 27) pages; he reiterated this yesterday, and welcomed Frist's call for the release of Clarke's testimony by declaring that all of the testimony, not just that favorable to the Bush admin., should be released.
I still say Bob Graham for VP. He may not be a fountain of charisma (however: does Kerry want a VP more charismatic than himself?), but he has been a rock, and, of course, is still popular in Fla.
kerry's challenge to the admin leads me to assume kerry knows damned well the scoop, and frist fell for it. they cannot charge clarke with perjury or they risk their own.
so where are all the trolls?
sorta quiet around here.
bringing bush and cheney and rummy up on war crimes charges would be a bold move to make nice with the undecided muslim world, no?
and rid us of these danged bushes.
talk about clearing brush....
I haven't read every post, but has anybody suggested that Frist's comments on the floor of the Senate amount to divuling classified information since he is describing Clarke's testimony in a classified session?
I haven't read every post, but has anybody suggested that Frist's comments on the floor of the Senate amount to divuling classified information since he is describing Clarke's testimony in a classified session?
The end of the Frank Rich article says a great deal more:
After Sept. 11, similar fake-news techniques helped speed us into "Operation Iraqi Freedom." The runup to the war was falsified by a barrage of those "modern public information tools," including 16 words of Tom Clancy-style fiction in the State of the Union address. John Burns of The New York Times, speaking by phone from Iraq to a postmortem on war coverage sponsored by the University of California at Berkeley's journalism school this month, said of the real press back then: "We failed the American public by being insufficiently critical about elements of the administration's plan to go to war."
Leaving one to wonder: was this comment reported in the "paper of record"?
What few journalistic efforts were made to penetrate the trumped-up rationales for war were easily defeated by the administration's false news reports of impending biological attacks and mushroom clouds. To see how the faux journalism sausage was made, go to www.reform.house.gov/min, where a searchable database posted by Representative Henry Waxman identifies "237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq" made by Bush and members of his administration.
And how sad is it that I have to learn about this searchable database from a link to a link to a link, on a blog?
What was that about "information superhighway" again?
As for the embedded journalists who filled in the rest of the story, a candid assessment was delivered by Lieutenant Colonel Rick Long, the former head of media relations for the Marine Corps, speaking at the Berkeley symposium: "Frankly, our job is to win the war. Part of that is information warfare." He added: "So we are going to attempt to dominate the information environment...Overall, we were very happy with the outcome."
The "independent press" is glad it could help the government with it's "Operation Infoganda." Let us know when we can do it again.
The New York Times
Copyright © 2003 The International Herald Tribune
Seems like just about anybody in the know is agreeing with Clarke:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2004Mar27.html
But, you know, the one thing that is missing from these debates, the one GLARING thing that is staring us all in the face is this: George W. Bush, our modern day Hannibal, using lies as his cover attacked an INNOCENT country and KILLED THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT people (innocent of 9/11 and he knew it) by bombing them back to the stone age and as a byproduct costing this country a couple hundred billion dollars, the goodwill of the rest of the world and by all accounts making the the United States and the world a much MORE dangerous place than it could have been otherwise just to settle a score for his dad ('course that was HIS motive, the other hawks had other reasons).
This sorry excuse for a human being let alone "President" is a cold-blooded murderer. Kind of makes the reason for impeaching Clinton pale in comparison don'cha think?
John Kerry: "These Guys Are the Most Crooked, Lying Group I've Ever Seen"
Seems quite prophetic in hindsight.
In a sharply worded speech, Frist said Clarke was "the only
common denominator" across 10 years of terrorist attacks that began
with the first attack on the World Trade Center, a bombing in an
underground parking garage in 1993 that killed six people
These guys just don't get it, do they? This extremist stuff under
the guise of Islam, or home-grown militia is the new "cold war".
There's going to be more shooting than the "cold war" (although Korea
and Vietnam should really be in that count) but with anybody but the
shrub team, it should be better than WW II/body>
Sorry about the shape of that post-first try with html 
Simpsons flashback:
Homer: So, do you think I have a case?
Lionel Hutz: I don't use the word "hero" very often -- but you are the greatest hero in American history.
Andrew | Email | Homepage | 03.27.04 - 11:18 am | #
Has anyone noticed how Sean Hannity refers to his radio callers as "You are a great American", while the caller scratch back by saying the same thin? It's hilariously stupid!
doug r-- I don't quite get your point there, but you did make me realize how disgusting this quote is:
"In a sharply worded speech, Frist said Clarke was "the only
common denominator" across 10 years of terrorist attacks..."
Oh really-- the ONLY common denominator? How about the most obvious common denominator which is the sick terrorist bastards who are trying to kill us?
This is our senate majority leader saying this? What a total asshole.
Then I'm thinking Dean for head of EPA -- we need a real fighter, and give him some serious enforcement power over polluters -- and, as you suggest, Edwards as AG. First case: War crimes against the entire fucking Bush Administration.
Wouldn't that be sweet?
If the NYTimes had any integrity at all, they'd put Rich back on the Op-Ed page where he belongs and get rid of one of those lying hacks that reside there now.
Something very important to point out is that there is no discrepency between Rice's comments that Clarke attended every meeting on terrorism that occured and Cheney's comments that Clarke was out of the loop. The simple answer is that there WERE NO MEETINGS ON TERRORISM so they are both correct. There was no loop at all.
jsg - I think that there were two meetings on counter-terrorism - finally. But you are mostly right - I happen to think that Clarke was the loop and he was trying desperately to get others in the WH to get in the loop with him.
I have said this before...its all a bluff. At the end of the day, the administration and repubs are making their situation worse not better by continuing the argument on Richard Clarke. There is an acute danger that they will firmly imbed rather than refute Clarke's versions of events as I have no doubt that he was truthful. They actually need to change the subject, badly. But its ok with me...please keep it up...
For a change of pace read what the oxy-moron has to say. It's pretty tame.
Looks like the partisan media doesn't want those 15 hours of closed testimony released. Why, I cannot understand the lack of curiosity on the part of the -- I cannot understand the partisan media's lack of interest to find out what was said that they didn't hear.
Well, we got 15 hours of Richard Clarke secrets in form of behind-closed-doors testimony, and you heard John Lehman yesterday refer to it as quite different from what he says in his book and what he's saying yesterday. Absolutely zilch, zero, nada curiosity. I'm watching Mike Isikoff now. He's on Fox, he's just going on, I have never seen such a more profound opening to testimony in my life since I've been in this town. That apology was just -- ahhh.
Now, I'm just telling you, folks, you know -- yes, yes, yes, yes, it makes me mad. Of course it makes me mad but I do not think everybody watching this is a bunch of dunces soaking it up, yeah, he's got a point. I know the libs are going to fall for it, but libs, they're not -- I don't know. I don't want to belabor this point. And if I ever get pessimistic I'll tell you. But I'm not pessimistic about this.
You know, forget journalist ethics for just a second. You know, Bob Kerrey started talking about journalist ethics when he held up that Fox transcript of the background interview that Clarke gave yesterday, but let's just talk about ethics. I wonder why it is that Bob Kerrey never asked Clarke if he thought it was ethical to work at the National Security Agency and then to use the purported information gained from -- that's pretty high and trusted position to write a book for profit. You know, this is unprecedented? This has never happened.
Nobody vetted the book, other than the editors. The editors got to see what was in there. Nobody vetted the book from the commission. Nobody from the National Security Council vetted the book. You're supposed to turn it over, [and ask] "Am I releasing stuff I shouldn't be talking about?" Nobody saw that. Nobody saw the galleys of this book before it went out.
Well, he said the White House held it up. Well, yeah, yippee, held it up? This is a great example of holding it up. The point is nobody on the commission vetted it.
What does it matter if she (Rice) testifies in public or not? I'll tell you what the matter is, I'll tell you what their focus is. They want her testifying in public so they can grandstand. They want Condoleezza Rice testifying in public so they can pontificate, so that they can pontificate, so they can engage in speech-making, so they can lecture her rather than ask her questions. They want to embarrass her and put her on the spot. They just want the spectacle.
Gasbag. Nothing of any substance to undermine the essential points of Clarke's testimony.
NO no no - Dean for FCC Chair!
Oops.
Link
The bush group just doesn't make any sense. Believe me, I wouldn't ever vote republcian even with a gun held to my head but, supposing it's all just a matter of degrees-that sure bush by a few degrees didn't push the issue (911) as did clinton? Why are the repugs do defensive? It seems to me that the whole thing could be desolved by going on the offensive. If clarke is lying then come out, under oath if necessary, and plead your case with the best information available; don't just say clarke is a liar. Of course, if the truth is bad politically then what they are doing is the best they can do or just say nothing and hope it blows over. I sense that more individuals in the administration are fatiquing when it comes to the lying and then the lying about the lying, etc, etc. Bush must show what will become of these people should they consider resigning and talking. Sometimes I wonder if there are even adequate reasons for being vindictive and secretive or if it is just character flaws. These reactions do more damage than the actual act and as more of these investigations (Plame, Iraq war, etc) play out better attack plans need to come out of this group or they are going to be like a stung boxer-just hitting back at air and continuing to be hit until TKO. It smells like it's starting to all come unglued and since they are all so incompetent when they are attentive then we as Americans are in for some real danger until we can get this group replaced.
First, aka the medicare 'KillBill' man... he is big time with Baptist hospitals, do not forget Le Bonheur and St.Jude do a lot of research in his district, and Vandy and UT Med.
The thieves have taken oven the good cause and are robbing us blind, Frist is an HMO accomplice and needs to be censured for his contradictory statements and possible dislocure breaches of classified information.
Kerry knows that Clarke is for real, and had lawyers fact check everything, to say Clarke was a liar would be to make the publishing industry go under a new era of first amendment scrutiny and liability. Limbaugh clones fear this more so than Clarke because he was a 'by the book' man whereas they abhor factual information presented in truthful manner.
When they realise what a can of worms was opened they'll try and hide this information for national security issues the same way they hid 9-11 and energy task force information.
Oil wells in Texas for terror targets... time to give antiterror funds to Bush supporters once more. The last time there was an oil terror strike it was the Alaska pipeline and papa Bush was still office.
Clarke was there for the most successful antiterror operation and he said the same thing needed to be done pre 9-11 and was ignored and look at the results.
Now Al Qaeda is diversified and from the stonewalling which led to this has gained a new understanding of our methods of detection so the next attack will surprise the INTEL community as a whole and it will be a wonderful "I told ya so" for the chimp.
And Putin can resort to extortion of nuke material in the former USSR the same way Bin laden still extorts Saudis. The Saudis love the side affect as well, their interests have captured Kuwait and Iraq and the destabilizated OPEC/oil source nations hike prices for the market sector they have larger shares of.
Oh did I forget to mention the stem cell research the chimp ignored that has lost us light years of patent races for a field which will boom and is also the best chance we have at solving/addressing bioterror?
Oh that's right more important things are on the news like Michael's trial or Janet's tit.
Nobody vetted the book, other than the editors. The editors got to see what was in there. Nobody vetted the book from the commission. Nobody from the National Security Council vetted the book. You're supposed to turn it over, [and ask] "Am I releasing stuff I shouldn't be talking about?" Nobody saw that. Nobody saw the galleys of this book before it went out.
I believe that the WH had it for months.
A couple of only vaguely related points.
First, I think Kerry SHOULD engage the Clarke issue in at least one way. He should quite publicly DEPLORE the character assassination the Republicans are now engaging in against Clarke, and should demand that they allow the truth to come out, and not attack the messenger. Kerry need not himself take ANY view on the substance of Clarke's allegations, but should only demand, on behalf of the victim's families and the American people, that the truth be permitted to be known.
A second point is that it's simply inconsistent for Frist and others to attack Clarke for being a "failure" in his handling of terrorism because so much terrorism occurred under his watch, and then give the Bush administration a free pass for its demonstrable lack of interest in this issue. If indeed terrorism was a major problem that Clarke failed to reduce, then what excuse might the Bush administration possibly have largely to ignore it as it did?
And if Clarke lied, it would reassert the fact that Bush pushes half-truths at best.
We need no more 're-Russert-ions' of half truths as fact. Clarke's job was to present the only good news of the administration, and look his stuff up, it rarely reinforces Bush policy until after the fact, and does not really blame the Clenis.
The Bush league is burnt no matter what happens. George Bush, by the way, is "out of the loop". Too bad, he really likes fruit-loops, almost as much as Countess Chocula (probably what he calls Con-Duh Liar Rice the head of his Vulcan staff.
As my husband knows, I've thought all along that Sept 11 would prove to be Bush's undoing. Just figured they could only get away with their stage-managing of "leadership in the war on terror" for so long.
MRB - Let me tell you what the WH is doing. This is a time-honored criminal defense technique. When the facts and the law are both against you, you go after the witness/victim. You indulge in character assassination, and hope the jury thinks that the accuser is so discredited that your client gets acquitted.
It's as simple as that.
OT - RE: The LATimes editorial about W's laff-riot search for WMD's in the Oval Office (thanks for the tip, Trifecta), here's my letter to the editor:
"You seem to have missed the distinction between self-deprecating comedy and the "nyah-nyah fooled you" nose-thumbing variety on display in Bush's "comedic" search for the weapons of mass destruction in his skit.
On the one hand, self-deprecating comedy, such as that displayed in Clinton's skit where he runs after Hillary's car saying "you forgot your lunch," pokes fun at the actor himself. On the other hand, Bush's skit wherein he searches for WMD in the Oval Office pokes fun at those who were suckered into believing his claims - which include first and foremost the majority of members of the press in this country. Without the press' willing acceptance of the administration's claims of Iraqi WMD and failure to vigorously - or even superficially - investigate said claims, it's unlikely the administration could have mustered the public support necessary for the invasion of Iraq - a serious miscalculation that has cost almost 600 American soldiers and countless thousands of innocent Iraqis their lives and has cost the American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars which could have been used to actually make the country more secure from the threat of future terrorist attacks.
What is funny about that? Would you find a skit in which Ken Lay or Jeff Skilling "search" for the billions pilfered from Enron investors and employees equally amusing? Because that would roughly parallel the President's attempt to dismiss this disaster in foreign policy and international relations as a simple "my bad" moment, played for comedic effect.
Worst of all is the fact that it's not surprising that this President would make a joke out of a disaster that he and he alone is ultimately responsible for creating. It's simply part of a well-established pattern by this administration that the buck always stops with someone - anyone - else. What's truly appalling is the reaction of the press in attendance, most of whom seemed to find the fact that the Bush administration misled them into misinforming the public a source of knee-slapping hilarity. "Dude, you really got us with that one!" Any member of the press who finds being suckered by the Bush administration a source of comedy should drop all pretense of being a "public watchdog" or serious provider of information to the American public."
We've got 'em on the ropes right now and they're flailing, but we've got seven more month-long rounds to go. Kerry's got good help from his corner at the moment and he's looking good and rested. It's probably good strategy not to get in a clinch right now by stepping into the Clarke debate too much. Look Presidential and be prepared to hit 'em hard if they start to come off the ropes.
Don't ya just love boxing metaphors?
That is why Kerry took week off, they needed time to raffirm this and let it get out spin-free, their job is not to spin this, it has merit and fact and can stand on its own as an indictment.
Follow-up comes later, look at the neocon trolls fall apart over this.
Kerry's platform needs focus, a good tax plan for working and middle class folks, and some of the gains/business breaks as incentive.
If Kerry did this correctly we could probably get impeachment proceedings underway for Bush,Cheney, Condie,Ashcroft...
But that would mean running a real Repub when the cabinet is cleared, probably a McCain. Wait until after the convention, there are 2 more 9-11 commission sessions to go, and by the time Saudis are spotlighted the Carlysle bandit Bush league will be looking to hide out wherever the WMD are, somewhere they cannot be seen.
sdf, i agree about graham. he may not be a fountain of charisma, but he wona lot of elections in FL and makes a good pit bull. he also was head of the senate intelligence committee. plus graham voted against the war, engendering good will for the ticket among the activist base, as AnneW suggests
and dean for head of the DNC, goddamit.
Nobody vetted the book, other than the editors.
A blatant lie, and he knows it, his producers know it, his listeners know it.
Why doesn't bush just say that he can't remember-it worked for reagan. Or that he really had a buzz-on and spaced-out the 911 thing. Right-wingers would still understand.
"Frist?"
Iowa Democrat
LOL! Took me ten minutes to get it, but hey, I'm only on my frist cocktail.
Actually, I think what Kerry needs to do is show up at some funerals. He doesn't have to say anything, in fact, he should refuse all questions and request no coverage. But just showing up would be huge.
Yeah, our local paper repeated Frist's claim that Clarke was telling two different stories but never bothered to print his later quote contradicting that statement.
As for Hillbilly Heroine Hero--Gah. The trouble is that A LOT of out there listen to his garbage and take it as truth. So very frightening.
[cross post from the Kerry blog]
Here's an article from the Washington Post that has some very useful material, but a VERY misleading headline.
The headline suggests that Bush and Clinton both handled terrorism the same way. In fact, it shows that the claim by the Bush administration that it was beginning to plan a far more aggressive approach to terrorism before 9/11 is mostly a fabrication. Clarke's most basic point, that the Bush administration did essentially nothing to IMPLEMENT any policy suggestions, and its utter indifference to the verymuch heightened level of chatter etc. in the summer before 9/11 remains.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=...mar26&
printer=1
Sorry, here's the linkto the Wa Post article.
Jennifer - Your letter is absolutely great - you've nailed why Bush's little joke was so offensive. Completely.
During the Clinton administration, the most deadly terrorist attack on American soil was committed by Republicans.
Kinda makes you wonder.
A point raised on Left coaster: Kerry should use this occasion to point out that the behavior of the Republicans against Clarke only confirms Kerry's "crooked liars" comment.
Frist wasn't the first one to float this charge in public -- Lehman did it during the hearing.
What I'd like to know is who pointed it out to Lehman. Commission staffer? Goss? The WH?
Who put the Faux news transcript in Thompson's pudgy little hand?
Rich Lowry was tittering all morning that "they" had a bombshell to release when Clarke testified, so who is "they"?
Kerry's talking about Clarke now:
John Kerry (news - web sites) said the White House is committing character assassination with its treatment of former counterterror chief Richard Clarke to avoid responding to questions about national security that Clarke raised.
"I don't think people want questions about character; I think they want questions about our security to be answered," Kerry said Saturday. "That's what this is about."
Kerry also said Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), President Bush (news - web sites)'s national security adviser, should testify in public before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
"If Condoleezza Rice can find time to do `60 Minutes' on television before the American people, she ought to find 60 minutes to speak to the commission under oath," Kerry told reporters. "We're talking about the security of our country."
Great letter, Jennifer. Will it fall on deaf ears? Some, I fear. Too much truth.
Surprisingly wtfwjd? your article was penned by Nedra Pickler.
She got in a few one-sided digs, but based on her track record they were pretty shallow.
O'Neill was fired as Treasury secretary in December 2002 after publicly questioning the need for additional tax cuts, a core campaign issue for Bush.
Kerry, who spent much of the past week on vacation in Idaho, said he had not heard or read any of the testimony before the commission.
I think the real scandal will hit the mainstream press in a few weeks. The reason that Bush & co. didn't actively pursue military options against al-Queda between 01/01 and 09/01 is because they were actively negotiating with the Taliban for the gas pipeline deal. This was a major topic in the Energy Task Force meetings and the reason that Cheney was meeting so often with Ken Lay. The pipeline deal would have allowed cheaper gas into India, which would have allowed the Enron power plant to produce energy that Indians could afford, and thus not sit idle like it is now. But, towards August Enron was starting to implode anyway. Sorry I don't have any links right now but a bit of googling will give anyone who is interested more info. You wait. Three weeks and this will be the topic that will erase Clarke from the headlines.
"On that same topic, did anyone else notice when Preznit Dickbrain finished each of his "jokes," he worked his mouth and jaw like old Walter Brennan or Slappy White? What is up with that? Chewing his cud? Gumming his Skoal?"
It's left over from his trainers. When he says a whole sentence without screwing up, they give him a little cheese cracker. Watch him when he knows he's made a mistake -- he's expecting an electrical shock!
LOL! Kip.
Wes Clark made a great statement that even though he was abroad stationed in hostile theatres the rep of Mr.Clark was that he was aggressive and a go-getter.
Wes Clark made a great statement that even though he was abroad stationed in hostile theatres the rep of Mr.ClarkE was that he was aggressive and a go-getter.
Sen Rockefeller, ranking Dem. on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is interviewed in local Charleston, WV newspaprer today. Among other great statements, he is quoted as saying "And three chairmen of major [Senate] committees were told by Dick Cheney not to investigate anything in the adminstration".
No follow up question---anyone know WTF he's talking about??? Did I miss something?
The reason that Bush & co. didn't actively pursue military options against al-Queda between 01/01 and 09/01 is because they were actively negotiating with the Taliban for the gas pipeline deal. This was a major topic in the Energy Task Force meetings and the reason that Cheney was meeting so often with Ken Lay. The pipeline deal would have allowed cheaper gas into India, which would have allowed the Enron power plant to produce energy that Indians could afford, and thus not sit idle like it is now. But, towards August Enron was starting to implode anyway.
That's a crazy conspiracy theory! Lalalalalala! I can't hear you! Lalalalalala!
Rt
This article goes into it.
http://www.workingforchange.com/...fm?
itemid=13331
Will we here more regarding John O'Neill?
If he stands on the Senate floor and calls Clarke a liar, he gets a good video clip thats played all over the news.
Well Enron is gone in North America, Ken Lay is a big mover for Tony Blair now, however.
And Global Crossing's Asian Interests were purchased by Carlysle Group, you see India is about to be a first world nation so getting the inside track on their power bills is important.
Now back to real American news, Janet's Tit, Michael and Kobe raping anything with 2 legs, and our great 'Merican leader and his bald boss VP whose court case will undermine our entire contsitution.
Wait a second, ignore the last fact it isn't newsworthy...
Jack:
While McCain isn't the worst possible choice, trying to reach out for "bipartisanship" is hopelessly muddle-headed. The Rethuglicans (and even McCain has occasionally bowed to them; he isn't one himself, though) will chew you up and spit you out in little tiny pieces if you try for "bipartisanship". Haven't we learned all we need to know about "compassinate conservatism"? Screw the Rethuglicans and may they rot in hell.
Cheers,
-- Arne
Rich is being sarcastic when he calls Hardball, Larry King and Dateline "real" news shows, isn't he?
If he isn't the real news is in real trouble.
Left unsaid is the hilarity of seeing former Illinois Gov. Janes Thompson on the 9/11 Commission. Those of us who live in Illinois know Thompson is as phony as a $3 bill and find real irony in him trying to smear Richard Clarke during Clarke's testimony.
Thompson has been phony since before he was elected governor. To get elected, he slavishly followed orders of a political marketing expert to lose 40 lb., get married to the woman he's been seeing for over eight years and, since it would look funny if a baby arrived before election day, buy a dog. This was bad news all over. Neither he or his bride were ready for marriage, and see ended up in sanitariums fighting alcoholism. And Thompson campaigned with this excitable, untrauined Irish setter on a short leash (even in TV interviews) which ultimately bit WLS-TV reporter Hugh Hill duruing a live interview five days before the election. The baby girl Thompson eventually had was used as a political prop later, seen crying on camera as Thompson posed with celebrities, reporters and Bozo the Clown. He later used his amendatory veto to delay implementation of a child carseat law so his daughter would be just beyond the minimum age so he wouldn't have to comply.
Thompson seldom read the bills he signed. One bill declaring 1980 as The Year of the Bible included a rider banning car sales on Sunday, which he later said he was unaware was in the bill. Another bill allowing judges to triple traffic fines for scofflaws had a rider restricting use of FAX machines, which again he alibied he was unaware was not in the bill. But he did veto an automobile lemon law in 1983; but when the legislature reenacted it in 1985 by a veto-proof majority, Thompson signed it and claimed it was his idea all along, thus setting precident for Bush taking credit for all the bills passed in Texas he opposed.
Most interesting is that in December, both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times reported that Thompson may be tied into the scandals of the George Ryan administration, using his current status with a politically-connected legal firm to get favors for clients in return for campaign contributions. No indictments yet, but federal attorney Fitzgerald is working on it.
But then, Thompson is just the type of persopn he wants assessing his performance. Thompson is part of the problem.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
