If you are bored- check out this piece in Time, and then check out this story, which you read here three days ago.
Advantage- blogosphere.
Archives for 2004
Shameless Display
If Yglesias was upset by the non-partisan behavior of Kerrey yesterday during the hearings, he is certainly loving the obscene tongue kissing going on between the hideously and transparently partisan Richard Ben-Veniste and Sandy Berger.
This is downright shameless.
Fan Mail
I got some more fan mail today:
John,
Been a long time. See you are still an ARA – ardent republican a..hole. If Satan were running on the republican ticket and God on the Democrat – who would you vote for?
ed nugent
marietta, ohp.s. – still don’t think it was about the oil?
I feel all gushy inside.
BTW- I would vote libertarian, given those choices.
9-11 Commission
Bob Kerrey just unloaded on the bullshit plan that the Clinton administration supposedly sent to the Bush administration to deal with Osama bin laden and Al Qaeda.
You know- the bullshit that Matt Yglesias and others have been lying about for two years, including in one of Matt’s first Prospect pieces.” For those who don’t remember this line of horse manure, this was the ‘comprehensive plan of all plans’ that Clarke, Berger, et. al devised and handed over that the Bushies just didn’t get around to implementing.
Good for Kerrey. I wish we could have had Gary Hart and Sam Nunn on this commission, too.
*** Update ***
MY bad- Kerrey hammered the New plan, which he said was not much more. At any rate, this still underscores the fact that no useful plan, as has been spun repeatedly, was put forth:
Well, Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, say for the record, since Dr. Rice is not going to be here in this — yesterday we heard both Secretary Wolfowitz and Secretary Rumsfeld refer to the failure of the Clinton administration to deliver a plan dealing with Al Qaida, and they’d spent seven or eight months developing their own plan.
I was briefed this morning on that plan. And I would say, fortunately for the administration, it’s classified because there’s almost nothing in it. It calls for more diplomacy. It calls for increased pressure. Basically the same thing that Director Tenet just talked about, using tribals against Al Qaida. And lastly, calls for some vague things to try to oust Mullah Omar.
Blogads
If you want to advertise here, blogads are set up to the right. I should probably put something up so it looks like they are selling. Anyone got a charity that is worthwhile?
Or, of course, you could email me and we could discuss advertising that you might like to pay for…
The Ladies Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks
Contrary to Oliver’s histrionics, there is no personal jihad against Richard Clarke. Few but those on the fringe have launched personal salvos against the man, and for the most part, the criticisms have focused mainly on what the man has said, what his past postions on issues have been, and how his statements simply do not add up. This is not a function of an ‘Republican Attack Machine,’ it is an entirely fair examination of the record of a man who has made outrageous, and in my not so humble opinion, demonstrably false and slanderous accusations about the current administration and the President.
For fun, let’s look at what personal attacks might look like. Anyone remember the smear campaign that accompanied George Stephanopoulos’s All Too Human?
He has been criticized by Clinton supporters as disloyal and a traitor for writing a book that often paints a less than flattering portrait of the president. Mr. Stephanopoulos bristles at the criticism.
Just the facts, right? There was nothing to the jihad against George, was there? Do a google search yourself about George and see what turns up.
On the other hand, what has been examined about Richard Clarke is not about his character, but what he has done. As far as I can tell, the three most widely distributed quotes from Clarke’s book or about Clarke’s book are the following:
1.) The assertion that Bush somehow pressured him to blame Iraq for the 9/11 attacks and somehow was pressured to fabricate information. I think that claim has been decimated by yours truly below.
2.) This one is a gem:
As I briefed Rice on Al Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard of the term before, so I added, “Most people think of it as Osama bin Laden’s group, but it’s much more than that. It’s a network of affiliated terrorist organizations with cells in over 50 countries, including the U.S.”
And then, of course, the audio tapes of Condi Rice coherently and intelligently discussing Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden a year before ever meeting Clarke surface. Oops.
3.) In testimony before the commission yesterday, Paul Wolfowitz stated:
But with respect to the quote that the reporter presented as having been put in my mouth, which was an objection to Mr. Clark suggesting that ignoring the rhetoric of Al Qaida would be like ignoring Hitler’s rhetoric in Mein Kampf, I can’t recall ever saying anything remotely like that. I don’t believe I could have. In fact, I frequently have said something more nearly the opposite of what Clark attributes to me. I’ve often used that precise analogy of Hitler and Mein Kampf as a reason why we should take threatening rhetoric seriously, particularly in the case of terrorism and Saddam Hussein. So I am generally critical of the tendency to dismiss threats as simply rhetoric. And I know that the quote Clark attributed to me does not represent my views then or now. And that meeting was a long meeting about seven different subjects, all of them basically related to Al Qaida and Afghanistan.
By the way, I know of at least one other instance of Mr. Clark’s creative memory. Shortly after September 11th, as part of his assertion that he had vigorously pursued the possibility of Iraqi involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he wrote in a memo that, and I am quoting here, When the bombing happened, he focused on Iraq as the possible culprit because of Iraqi involvement in the attempted assassination of President Bush in Kuwait the same month, unquote.
Four statements by Clarke, varying from a snide dismissal of the capabilities of Condi Rice to an outright Lie on Clarke’s part to an overstatement of his own intuition in 1993 to a mischaracterization of Paul Wolfowitz’s statements.
And that is before anyone even has a chance to read the book and google it and fact-check his ass. Mind you- there have been no personal attacks, no ad hominems, nothing of the sort. Instead, an examination of his statements and his record, which is completely legitimate, no matter how much Oliver whines.
And let’s get to some of the other questions. Tell me why these lines of inquiry are unfair?
– Is it unfair to note that he may be disgruntled because he was turned down for a position?
– Is it unfair to note that the company that owns CBS also stands to profit from the book, and thus could explain the softball interview on 60 Minutes?
– Is it unfair to note that before Clarke was demoted, he was the terrorism czar while Al Qaeda attacked the United States numerous times and grew into the behometh we are currently dealing with?
– Is it unfair to note that depending on the month, Clarke asserted that the greatest threats to the nation were cyber-terrorism, or narcotic trafficking, or whatever the cause of the day might have been?
– Is it unfair to note that he may not have had the same level of information and access in the Bush administration that he did during the Clinton years, and thus might be characterized as ‘out of the loop?”
– Is it unfair to ask him what he actually did accomplish, and what specific suggestions he may have had that were ignored that turned out to be true?
– Is it unfair to question his politics and his relationship with Kerry’s advisor?
– Is it unfair to question why he stayed on for several years after 9/11 if he was so appalled at this administration?
– Is it unfair to ask why none of these criticisms were leveled before the heart of the election cycle?
Someone please explain this to me, because I am at a loss. I don’t think any of this is out of bounds- and if ithere are legitimate answers to those questions, why wouldn’t they be fair questions. Honest answers that make sense would seem to STRENGTHEN Clarke’s assertions.
But then again, that is just me.
The Ladies Doth Protest Too Much, MethinksPost + Comments (13)
Appalling ‘Judge’ ment
I hate mandatory minimums, as I believe it restricts the ability of judges to make appropriate sentencing decisions, and in the case of drug laws, sends non-violent offenders to prison for excessive and cruel lengths. However, when I read things like this, it just makes me shake my head:
Our Hall of Shame Award today goes to Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan.
TChris wrote yesterday about Philadelphia public defender Fred Goodman who got decked by his client in front of the jury during a murder and rape trial which might bring the death penalty. It was inevitable that the Judge would allow Mr. Goodman to resign after the punch. It also should have been inevitable that a mistrial be declared–Mr. Goodman shouldn’t have to continue the trial, and, after all, the jury saw what happened too.
But no, the Judge in the case tried to force Mr. Goodman’s associate counsel, Andrea Konow, to continue by herself. She refused. Now she’s in jail. The Judge says she’s staying there until she changes her mind and resumes representing the client.
Go read the rest of this apalling story, and if you dont already, you should make Talk Left a daily read.
Some of you are probably wondering why I always sound like such a softy on matters of crime and punishment, so I will digress for a moment. As far as I am concerned, government is simply an institution which should not be trusted. The most powerful things the government can do are to execute a citizen, imprison a citizen, send a citizen to war, confiscate the property of a citizen, and tax a citizen. All of those powers have the ability to destroy the citizen.
Having worked briefly in the criinal justice system (interned in the probation office for 6 months, then spent 6 moths as a PO while one officer was ill), I can assure you, without exageration, that the deck is stacked against the poor, the unintelligent, and those of minority status when it comes to matters of criminal justice, with financial status and the ability to hire good legal representation the most damning of the three. I don’t think anyone even debates this issue anymore, it is so clearly and undeniably true.
Therefore, I find it sickening that a judge would behave this way with a public defender- someone who herself is probably radically underpaid, working for a client who probably doesn’t have a chance in hell in the courtroom anyway for a variety of reasons.