Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFor an agency whose job it is not to be surprised, nearly everything seems to surprise the CIA these days. So it's not surprising that the agency was surprised by the choice of Leon Panetta to head it. I was surprised too. My first reaction: it's an odd and unsettling choice. Here's why.
First, it's a bad idea to pick a politician to lead the CIA, because it is supposed to be an agency that is not political. Don't laugh -- that's the way it's supposed to be. Think about George W. Bush's most overt effort to politicize the CIA, by picking the Republican ideologue and hatchet man, Representative Porter Goss, in 2006. Goss' tenure was a disaster, and he had the advantage of being a former CIA officer and chairman of the House intelligence committee. Panetta is a know-nothing when it comes to intelligence.
Which brings up the second problem. The Obama transition team is telling reporters that Panetta had experience as a "consumer" of intelligence when he was chief of staff at the Clinton White House. Well, I have experience as a purchaser of computer equipment, but you wouldn't want me fixing your laptop. Fixing the CIA -- and believe me, it needs fixing, along with serious downsizing -- requires someone who knows how the insides work, and Panetta has no clue.
Third, while Panetta may oppose torture -- a "no-brainer," to quote Dick Cheney's phrase when asked about waterboarding -- there are hundreds of former CIA top officials who actually know how the CIA works who were appalled by the torture regime. Any of them might have been a better choice. So opposing torture is a good idea -- and yes, it's amazing that we're even debating whether torture is acceptable -- but Panetta gets no points for me on that score. That's like saying he opposes child pornography. Duh!
Fourth, Panetta is a relentless centrist and a conciliator. He's one more cog in the center-right national security apparatus that Obama is patiently assembling. Which raises another very important issue: Is Panetta the one to stand up and fight for civilian control of the intelligence community? Of course not. His boss, it appears, will he Admiral Dennis Blair, yet another top military man appointed to run the U.S. intelligence community as head of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Now the very office of the DNI is a useless post, and the entire office ought to be abolished by Obama on Day One. Who needs it? It was created by Congress, with President Bush's support, as part of the helter-skelter intelligence reorganization that also saw the creation of several other vast, unneeded agencies: the Northern Command, the Department of Homeland Security, and National Counterterrorism Center, and others. Obama should get rid of all of them. In the meantime, by appointing Blair, a man deeply entangled in the military-industrial complex, Obama is guaranteeing that the CIA and the other fifteen or so agencies that comprise the "community" will be ever beholden to the Pentagon, which already absorbs something like 80 percent of the intelligence budget.
The Panetta appointment is doomed. I give him a year, before he gives up over there. He's no match for the hardheaded spooks who run the place, and he's no match for the military brass who are elbowing their way to more and more control of intelligence spending and priorities.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
No arguments here.
Enjoy the break.
----
But, how does this play into the Obama/marxist takeover of the federal government? Commanchenation? Luvvy?
Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 5:42pm
Absolutely correct on these observations , as stated : >Who needs it? It was created by Congress, with President Bush's support, (yet another reason to get rid of it !)as part of the helter-skelter intelligence reorganization that also saw the creation of several other vast, unneeded agencies: the Northern Command, the Department of Homeland Security, and National Counterterrorism Center, and others. Obama should get rid of all of them< There are too many of Bush`s >idiotic creations<which require to be eliminated once Obama takes office. Also,it equally requires someone with strong willpower and determination as well as conviction for " the change the American public has demanded" when we elected Obama. One can only hope that he as well, is remembering it.
Posted by vote at 01/05/2009 @ 6:04pm
anyone who thinks politicians will cut down on the size of government - a liberal politician nonetheless - is so out of the realm of reality it's scary.
the federal gov't is going to keep growing (this is not a partisan thing either).
Posted by urmygyro at 01/05/2009 @ 6:07pm
Right on Mr. Dreyfuss.
One critical point is missing. Obama just snubbed the hundreds if not thousands of loyal competent intelligence veterans who quit in disgust in the Bush era.
Tossing in an amateur gives comfort to those who collaborated with treason and demoralizes the best and brightest.
Utterly wrong message. The CIA needs to be purged of all the cynical spooks who knowingly authorized or made routine use of interrogation methods designed only to extract false confessions.
Posted by Truffledog at 01/05/2009 @ 6:25pm
JFK- 2 years
LBJ- 6 years
Carter- 4 years
CLinton 8 years
Total= 20 years +-
-----
Eisenhower- 8
Nixon-5 1/2
Ford- 2 1/2
Reagan- 8
Bush- 4
Bush 8
total= 36 years.
Yep, must be the dems fault. Good call, Commanche, the numbers appear to back up your PontiFlogic. 20 years is longer than 36 years, right? Giving the dems more control over the US government. up is blue?
So, how does this make Panetta a Marxist? The socialist programs he helped Bill Clinton pass, like welfare reform, NAFTA and the balancing of the budget?
Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 6:52pm
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Panetta appointment.
Leon has more political than partisan skill, and that is precisely what is needed to reign in all of the inter-agency squabbles over turf concerning US intelligence.
Although I will be the first to admit that much of the so-called "intelligence lapses" in the Bush Administration were self inflicted by Bush and Cheney, there really are some inter-agency squabbles that have to be resolved so that the president (Obama) gets accurate intelligence.
Panetta is great at bringing people with disparate agendas together around a common purpose, and on that score, he is a GREAT choice!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/05/2009 @ 7:12pm
Who would be your choice to head the CIA ROBERT DREYFUSS?
Posted by Metteyya at 01/05/2009 @ 7:15pm
The CIA isn't going to be downsized, but it does need shaking up. The spooks who rode the Bush-wave of polluted toxic runoff, spilled out from the Republican conventions no doubt, need to be removed. They can go work for Mugabe or another similar fascist. Or Blackwater as an overseas operative! There are still many places that people with no conscience or scruples are wanted, but not here anymore!
The work of renewing trust will take more than a year. Can Panetta do it? I don't know but if he's an improvement over the current situation, then it's better than what we could expect under GWB.
Even the Republicans in Congress will admit that torture, rendition, and secret prisons provoked the Middle East. Why would they want to inflame the Middle East, except to drive up oil prices and destroy the economy so the really rich could buy up the part of America they didn't already own!
Posted by squidboy6 at 01/05/2009 @ 7:21pm
Panetta is just as qualified to be head of the CIA as Hillary Clinton is qualified to be Secretary of State. This new administration has a lot of serious holes in it where Democratic Party figures have received big appointments they're generally bad choices for out of purely political considerations. See: Clinton, Panetta, Napolitano, the entire economic team, etc.
Posted by syfriendly at 01/05/2009 @ 8:21pm
The agency is fully staffed with competent manpower. What it will have with Panetta is a head with unassailable integrity to assure that the intelligence is again likewise.
Posted by denim39 at 01/05/2009 @ 8:32pm
-This: "... House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny ...," is poppycock.
Such deceit discredits itself.
The first visitor in the first hour of Newtie's first day in the Speaker's chambers was Rupert Murdoch who cut a check and handed over $5,000,000 for a so-called 'book' to be (ghost) written later. (The artifact, '1945,' none dare call a 'book.') Instead, a year to the day later, Newtie handed up the murlockian 1996 Telecommunications Act from which all ruin of Press and massmind (broadcast) media has flowed ... apparently filling the supposed 'thought' cited above as poppycock piffle.
Ruin of Press, 'Time of the Book,' recently recounted here: TomDispatch.org/post/175015/the_time_of_the_book
---
On point: "the CIA ... needs fixing, along with serious downsizing." NOT!
Seriously: <b> ABOLISH the CIA</b>, (and its look-alikes, smell-alikes, act-alikes -- the whole enchilada). Outright! Abolition! By POTUS decree, undone as it was done; same as Prohibition was Repealed: Outright.
Why? Simply note that every 'war' (undeclared and unconstitutional) and rumor of 'war' and every drop of bloodshed, millions of consumed souls and ravaged bodies, around the world, since CIA inception (1947), has been CAUSED and INSTIGATED by the CIA in the first act. Up to and including the 'Israeli-proxy' acts today toward genocide in a Gaza massacre.
Not to mention the lies, disinformation, propaganda, and more; a facetious 'Cold War' on hallucinated and psychological-operated 'communists' under every bed; and sequel in overreached collapse for a bogus 'war' on non-existent 'terrorists.'
' ... the DNI ... ought to be ABOLISHED; Northern Command, Homeland Security, Nat'l C-terror Cntr, and others' - YESSSSSSS!
Posted by Meremark at 01/05/2009 @ 9:10pm
After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994.----Posted by comanchenation at 01/05/2009 @ 7:34pm
So strange that the American people would reject Republicans (the only non-evil party) in 2006 after "decades of gross abuses".
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 9:30pm
I'm really getting curious about you squid. Are you really this stupid or do you make a living playing stupid? Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/05/2009 @ 7:27p
Hey lvliberty1, why do you hate liberty, freedom of speech, the Bill of Rights, and Americans?
This is what one person had to say about Panetta, " A former senior CIA official responding to the Panetta pick:
"He has sufficient gravitas to ensure that CIA equities are going to be protected, and the agency continues to have a strong voice. There may be some people at Langley who will look at this and say, ‘what?' but when they stop and think about it, I think they'll be enthusiastic." (Washington Post)
Panetta is a good choice. The agency needs new blood after the failures of the past eight years.
-- MM"
What I do to make a living is none of your business. This is no longer a Police State and FASCISTS are no longer in vogue, even in the Republican Party. Get a life!
Posted by squidboy6 at 01/05/2009 @ 9:34pm
Ultratypical neoconwingnuts posts -- negative, hostile, faking strength but bereft of coherent ideas.
0% contribution
100% parasitic
Posted by winyahn at 01/05/2009 @ 9:57pm
So some time in June, we will be able to go to sleep at night, secure in the knowledge that Panetta is the best choice to make sure that the CIA is improving in its mission of providing intelligence for our nation. He will streamline the processes, improve the in country networks, modernize technologies, better utilize our partners, etc. He can do all this because...?
Posted by sntauri at 01/05/2009 @ 10:10pm
Panetta is great at bringing people with disparate agendas together around a common purpose, and on that score, he is a GREAT choice!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/05/2009 @ 7:12pm
Mett, who has Panetta brought together that had "disparate agendas"? Like most libs, he's afraid of his own shadow.
Posted by ACook at 01/05/2009 @ 10:16pm
"They cannot flee. They are fenced in. They are bombing one and a half million people in a cage."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev6ojm62qwA
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/05/2009 @ 10:21pm
Like most libs, he's afraid of his own shadow.----Posted by ACook at 01/05/2009 @ 10:16pm
And you base this on ...what? Specifically?
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 10:34pm
RE: Panetta ...
Well, you should be more concerned with the prez's experience than with Leon Panetta's. He's very competent guy, perhaps the most knowledgeable Dem save Bubba and HRC.
--------
Panetta's experience questioned By Sam Youngman 01/05/09 06:59 PM [ET] The top Democrat and top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee are questioning President-elect Obama's choice to be the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the incoming chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said she had not been informed of former Rep. Leon Panetta's (D-Calif.) nomination.
"I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," she told the Associated Press. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."
Posted by HelenDAO at 01/05/2009 @ 10:39pm
First, all of the hullabaloo about Panetta assumes that the CIA Director is still the chief of US intelligence. It's not - the DIrector of National Intelligence is where the real power lies (or at least where Obama seems to want it to be.). Second, Porter Goss failed miserably not because he was a politician but rather because he was an insider, a former company man himself. Third, Panetta is not bereft of national security experience. As Chief of Staff to President Clinton, he would have received daily intelligence briefings. How many can say that? Fourth, the idea that Panetta is too centrist seems silly - this is the CIA we're talking about. Sorry, folks, the Company ain't going anywhere. I for one take heart that we have a president-elect who seems to want to take control over the agency. Panetta knows what presidents need to work effectively. Lastly, the fact that torture apologists like Jay Rockefellar and Diane Feinstein are miffed that Jane Harman didn't get the nod only serves notice that there is a new sheriff in town. Overall, I'm encouraged.
Posted by krhamrick at 01/05/2009 @ 10:44pm
Boy memories are short. Bush's CIA director for six years was Clinton's (Tenet). The Department of Homeland Security was formed because the Congress insisted on it, Dems and Reps, after 9-11; Bush was luke warm but went along. Ditto the reorganization of the intellegence service networks. CIA needs a hardnosed intelligence professional. If you think this is a new "weepy eyed era of peace", dream on, it's going to be nasty. If you insist on a Dem, try Jane Harman, she knows the business and won't sell us out.
Posted by pyeatte at 01/05/2009 @ 11:03pm
Clearly Panetta was the highest bidder...
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/05/2009 @ 11:27pm
maybe, he will be perfect for the job.
Posted by jim_molloy at 01/05/2009 @ 11:36pm
Well, I suppose we can be grateful that he didn't pick Heinrich Himmler, Diane Feinstein would have preferred that he had. Why Himmler? The torture supporting, AIPAC stooge, Feinstein, spent the afternoon in a snit that she'd wanted a "professional". And besides, nobody solicited her decidedly unwelcome opinion. A ray of sunshine amidst the gloom? Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while, I suppose.
Posted by john lowell at 01/06/2009 @ 12:21am
give the guy a chance. i think some outside the box fellow might work just fine. panetta is a good organization man.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/06/2009 @ 12:22am
I do agree that appointing a politician to a nonpolitical post is troubling, but maybe he was selected because an Admiral is Director of National Intelligence.
Instead of solely performing the function of collecting intelligence, the CIA has operated as a paramilitary force, of the President, for years.
The failure of the CIA to obtain reliable intelligence has cost America dearly.
Posted by koroviev at 01/06/2009 @ 01:20am
This seems to be one appointment which Obama made without consulting with AIPAC. This explains why Diane Feinstein is pissed off. Let's hope that AIPAC and Feinstein will forgive the helpless Obama for this honest mistake.
Posted by CripThink at 01/06/2009 @ 01:58am
Posted by CripThink at 01/06/2009 @ 01:58am
Yowsa, Mr. CripThink. You sho know how to tell da truph. Les them AIPACs forgive Mr. O bout dis, gon be big troubles fo sho.
Posted by john lowell at 01/06/2009 @ 06:40am
I'm really getting curious about you squid. Are you really this stupid or do you make a living playing stupid? Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/05/2009 @ 7:27pm |
He must be stupid, he agrees with John McCain, 11 other republicans and the dems on the Senate Armed Services committee!
Your little wars have strengthened Al Qaeda, gotten Hmas elected to run the Palestinian (not Warsaw) ghetto and elected Achmidinijaed.
Mission accomplished.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/06/2009 @ 07:18am
Clearly Panetta was the highest bidder...---Posted by freiheit1 at 01/05/2009 @ 11:27pm
You mean like a horse lawyer becoming head of FEMA?
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 07:24am
It is a silly idea that running the CIA is like repairing a computer. The latter takes technical skill and experience. The former takes guts and honesty.
Posted by asteyayet at 01/06/2009 @ 07:53am
I guess Obama didn't want anyone with the same idea's as those in the Bush team running the CIA! We need someone who will take a stand and be honest in a position of that magnitude...we've had enough shady dealings all around with Bush and his appointee's over the years. Obama wanted to do change, well here it is...it won't please all the Dems I'm sure but that is too bad. It's not a case of pleasing everyone anyway it's choosing the right people to get the job done.
Posted by Caj at 01/06/2009 @ 08:18am
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 07:24am
No, like Biden becoming Vice President.
Posted by john lowell at 01/06/2009 @ 10:23am
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 07:24am
Sure. Just like that. I suppose in your little world, Mask, with your undying mission to uncover hypocrisy in all things (guess what, we're all hypocrits Mask, including you) FEMA and the CIA are an apples to apples comparison.
So, yes, just like that.
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/06/2009 @ 10:40am
How about a veteran CIA insider ... who's honest ... Ray McGovern.
Posted by sloper at 01/06/2009 @ 10:46am
Check out Hillary Mann Leverett's comments regarding our new secretary of state and her AIPAC loving entourage. Kudos to Ms. Everett - Keith seemed speechless! Sometimes the truth gets through the media filter.
Feinstein can shove it. Who knows, maybe the secretary of state deal was brokered at Feinstein's DC residence - with her blessing. Let her voice her concerns in public, not behind closed doors.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28512590
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 10:57am
You are disgrace to this country and to the men and women who serve it.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 11:08am | warn this person
Which "country" are you talking about?
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 11:12am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 11:08am | warn this person
Guess by the context you mean the men and women who serve Israel.
What I consider disgraceful is conduct such as AIPAC espionage facilitation by men and women who are supposed to serving the United States and are citizens of the United States. This is treason, and just downright disgusting.
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 11:54am
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/06/2009 @ 10:40am
FREI, you cared nothing that "Brownie" was in charge of disaster recovery...yet the guy was obviously unqualified and just another rich flunkie of Bush...
Panetta was a Congressman and Chief of Staff to a President.
Yet to you HE "must have been the highest bidder"...not the incompetents who ran the show under Dubya.
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 12:10pm
>>>Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the incoming chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said she had not been informed of former Rep. Leon Panetta's (D-Calif.) nomination.
"I know nothing about this, other than what I've read," she told the Associated Press. "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."
Posted by HelenDAO at 01/05/2009 @ 10:39pm<<<
Feinstein is a DESPICABLE WAR PROFITEER!
http://www.metroactive.com/metro/01.24.07/dianne-feinstein-0704.html
She has absolutely no credibility when it comes to appointments of this sort, and even offered AIPAC shill, Jane Harmon, as an alternative to Panetta.
Harmon had the audacity to try to push Nancy Pelosi into appointing her to a committee chairmanship based soley on the fact that she had "the support of AIPAC".
AIPAC has been undermining US intelligence for years, trying to skew it in favor of their right-wing Israeli agenda.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/06/2009 @ 12:38pm
Isn't this sort of like cabinet government in the UK, where various Members of Parliament are given control of ministries (Panetta, former Representative, Clinton, former Senator, and so forth) rather than technocrats?
Posted by Mistral at 01/06/2009 @ 12:44pm
How about a veteran CIA insider ... who's honest ... Ray McGovern.
Posted by sloper at 01/06/2009 @ 10:46am
Good Idea!
That Luvvy finds him unacceptable makes it even better. Why would he want a guy in charge of the CIA that was correct about wmd's in Iraq? The guy hired by the "last good conservative", George HW Bush?
To any true patriot, Ray McGovern is a good guy. Israels interests are not the US interests. If the last 40 years have taught us anything, it is that. He is also a good Christian (although maybe to Luvvy, Ray is not a "real Christian). What apparently he is NOT, is a stooge for the right wing nutjobs that ran the republican party into the ground in 12 years, nor is he a prop for a UN presentation filled with falshoods, drunken intel and conjecture.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/06/2009 @ 1:01pm
'The Washington Post reported that, in his testimony [DNC forum convened by Conyers in 2005], McGovern "declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration 'neocons' so 'the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world.' He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. 'Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,' McGovern said. Genuine criticism of official Israeli policy is often portrayed as if it were anti-Semite bigotry: 'The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic.'" [15]'
Source: Wikipedia - query: Ray McGovern
LivLib posits David Horowitz as a reasoned critic of McGovern? Thats a streaaaaaaaaaaatch.......lol.
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 1:23pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 1:31pm
Since Conyers doesn't have any REAL power, who cares what he "says"?
Don't you find it disgusting, LVL, that Sarah Palin had to meet with the board of directors of AIPAC in her hotel just prior to the Republican convention?
Aren't we supposed to be a democracy governed by the people of the United States rather than some lobbyist group?
Posted by Metteyya at 01/06/2009 @ 1:38pm
AMY GOODMAN: These numbers, Congressman Conyers, quickly, American Research Group, 45% of Americans would back impeachment proceedings against Bush, 54%-that's more than half the American people-would back the same against Cheney. Your response?
REP. JOHN CONYERS: Well, I respect whoever they are, but I've got to produce the votes inside the Congress, and that's where our first battle is going to be. I had Ray McGovern in my first Downing Street memos hearings in the basement a few years back, in which we revealed that the war in Iraq was more preemptive than anything else. But marching into history, I've got to put together a winning program and not step on our message. We've got a lot of legislation to accomplish. The minority party in the House has been-and the Senate, too-have been very effective in preventing us from moving forward. And we've got-
[end of interview air time stop]
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/ 12/22/from-democracy-now
Sounds alot like our impeachment off the table crowd. True patriots like McGovern believe in upholding the Constitution rather than political [special interest group] expediency.
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 2:03pm
July 6, 1987 ON MIDDLE EAST POLICY, A MAJOR INFLUENCE By DAVID K. SHIPLER, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES LEAD: After several decades of growth in size and sophistication, the leading pro-Israel lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has become a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East.
After several decades of growth in size and sophistication, the leading pro-Israel lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has become a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East.
Operating from tightly guarded offices just north of the Capitol, the organization has gained the power to influence a Presidential candidate's choice of staff, to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between the Pentagon and the Israeli Army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by Senators and generals. Drawing on Broad Sympathy
The committee, known by its acronym Aipac, is an American lobby, not an Israeli one - it says its funds come from individual Americans -and it draws on a broad sympathy for the cause of Israel in the Administration, Congress and the American public. As a result, it has become the envy of competing lobbyists and the bane of Middle East specialists who would like to strengthen ties with pro-Western Arabs.
''It tends to skew the consideration of issues,'' a senior State Department official said. ''People don't look very hard at some options.'' This narrows the Administration's internal policy discussions, he said, precluding even the serious study of ideas known to be anathema to Aipac, such as the sale of some advanced weapons systems to Saudi Arabia
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 2:21pm
Really Liv, you give much credence to Congressional assurances that Israel doesn't influence our foreign policy?
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 2:24pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 1:31pm
Time for you to step beyond the right/left ideological mindlessness that defines conservatism through the lens of those at National Review, son. Their brown-shirt screed isn't anymore authentically "conservative" or "libertarian" or "Christian" than flying in the air. Its simply war-mongering, anti-life fascism posturing arrogantly is these guises. You're riding the wrong horse when you're riding David Horowitz. He's simply a pig and a trojan horse.
Posted by john lowell at 01/06/2009 @ 2:27pm
Since 1980, when Mr. Dine became executive director, the organization has assembled a cadre of weapons experts and strategic analysts who have transformed the lobby into a small think tank, publishing monographs with such titles as ''The Strategic Value of Israel'' and ''U.S. Procurement of Israeli Defense Goods and Services.'' Aipac's Washington office has a staff of 58.
Its research department is headed by Stephen J. Rosen, a conservative strategic analyst who worked for the Rand Corporation. One of his projects at Rand, under contract with the Pentagon, involved a study of the advantages to the United States of prepositioning military equipment in Israel, as opposed to Arab countries. The unclassified research has reappeared in an Aipac monograph.
Alan Platt, now serving as a part-time consultant for Aipac, also worked for Rand and, in the Carter Administration, dealt with conventional weapons transfers in the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
The value of such specialists is immense. They understand weapons systems, know the literature and have many contacts in the Pentagon and other agencies.
''We're involved at every point that a decision is being made,'' Mr. Dine said. Administration officials are now sounding out Aipac about the 1989 budget. And as the 1988 budget is being considered by Congress, ''we are being questioned constantly,'' he said, ''getting phone calls from the House Budget Committee leadership and staff, the Senate Budget Committee leadership and staff: 'What do you think if? What do you think about? Hey, how about?' '' Under Reagan, Warming Relations
Aipac's expanding efforts have been made easier by the sympathy it has found in the Reagan Administration, and the improvements in Israeli-American relations have been dramatic
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 2:27pm
continued exerpts from..........
July 6, 1987 ON MIDDLE EAST POLICY, A MAJOR INFLUENCE By DAVID K. SHIPLER, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 2:28pm
Feinstein should have been consulted. That does not mean however that she is the one to decide on what the direction of the CIA should be. It is the job of the President to decide policy direction. It is also his call to make the appointment, not Feinstein's or Rockefeller. Let's put ego away in favor of the president-elect's broader vision. What Obama needs is a capable CIA director who is able to carry out his vision effectively, without drama or administrative resistance. Panetta is a distinguished and very competent public service and adminstrator and thus fits that bill. And there is no lack of precedent for effective civilian, non-career line CIA Directors with little prior intelligence experience who did so well. One example is George H. W. Bush. No drama please, lady Feinstein! We respect Feinstein. She is a smart cookie--but we don't want her drama please!
Posted by drsam8 at 01/06/2009 @ 2:45pm
As for David Horowitz, the left hates him because he had the traitorous audacity to renounce his leftist extremist past and take on sanity instead. I find him a great voice of truth against the deception of leftist propaganda
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 2:43pm | warn this person
Like Joe McCarthy right Liv?
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 2:47pm
'The Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal (also known as the AIPAC espionage scandal) refers to allegations that information regarding United States policy towards Iran was passed to Israel through Lawrence Franklin via staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Franklin, a former United States Department of Defense employee, pled guilty to several espionage-related charges and was sentenced in January 2006 to nearly 13 years of prison. Two former AIPAC employees have also been indicted.'
Source: Wikipedia
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 2:55pm
'And according to the British Newspaper The Guardian, Feith's office had an unconventional relationship with Israel's intelligence services:
The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise. "None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms. The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party. [3]' Wikiped.
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 2:57pm
>>>BTW, do you have proof that she was forced to meet with AIPAC? I would think she would have welcomed the opportunity to meet with them. It's called democracy.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 2:19pm<<<
LVL, you know Sarah was told, "These people (AIPAC) need to feel comfortable with you, if we are going to have a chance to win the White House".
Palin made such a poor showing, lacking even basic command of policy issues, that the AIPAC board left the hotel shaking their head in disbelief.
And then you wonder why you lost Florida?
Posted by Metteyya at 01/06/2009 @ 3:06pm
BTW, LVL, how many other groups were given access to Palin in her hotel before she accepted the Republican nomination?
I'll give you a hint: It starts with a "Z"
Posted by Metteyya at 01/06/2009 @ 3:10pm
I find him a great voice of truth against the deception of leftist propaganda Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 2:43pm
As opposed to what? The truth of rightist propaganda? Propaganda is a lie no matter which side it's coming from. You need to open your eyes and see that your party is no way way better than the left.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/06/2009 @ 3:13pm
Posted by drsam8 at 01/06/2009 @ 2:45pm
Thanks for that official line, DRSAM8!
We know that is what you have to say, but Feinstein has crossed the line by pushing Jane Harmon for the job when we both know that AIPACers like her are big part of why our intelligence has gotten so screwed up.
Panetta will at least have the stature, connections, and the political sense to see through all the BS and get Obama the accurate intelligence he needs. Jane Harmon would be a disaster in this regard, and Feinstein knows this.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/06/2009 @ 3:31pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 2:43pm | warn this person
'While working in a law firm in Shawano, Wisconsin, he launched an unsuccessful campaign to become District Attorney as a Democrat in 1936. However, in 1939, McCarthy had better success: he successfully vied for the elected post of the non-partisan 10th District circuit judge. During his years as an attorney, McCarthy made money on the side by gambling.[7]'
Source: Wikipedia.........
Glad you didn't deny that Horowitz is an extremist. On that we agree.
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 4:08pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 2:43pm
"I don't read National Review."
That's a poorly disguised dodge, lvl. The point had to do with your surpassing the poison of ideology, something you'd clearly seem resistant to doing. You report enthusiasm about Horowitz's alleged truth telling. There's a truth about the Horowitz right as much as the amoral life and religion hating left, son. I'll trust your interest in truth when you can get past party or ideological loyalties.
Posted by john lowell at 01/06/2009 @ 4:20pm
Coming from you, that's funny. In fact, people without ideological loyalties are the most suspect people. For they lack conviction and thus cannot be trusted. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 4:44pm
That's the most asinine thing I have ever heard. It's not a lack of conviction. It's a conviction that makes you suspect of both sides and makes you realize that their asinine squabbling is just that, asinine. That the solution is not at one extreme or the other. You can be ideological without being right or left. According to you the only people who can be trusted are the people who agree with your one narrow perspective.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/06/2009 @ 5:10pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 4:44pm
"Coming from you, that's funny. In fact, people without ideological loyalties are the most suspect people. For they lack conviction and thus cannot be trusted."
Could it be that an abiding religious faith accounts for the aversion of many to ideology, their awareness that ideology is a simply a cheap, cheesy, man-made substitute for authentic religion and their unwillness to associate what they consider most central and enduring in life with the schlock? It's those that make a religion of their ideologies that are suspect, son, no those without it. Hitler and Stalin had ideologies. One's having ideological convictions is no indicator of trustworthiness as such would indicate.
Posted by john lowell at 01/06/2009 @ 5:19pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 5:21pm
I am firmly convinced that in all things there must be balance.
Posted by !immutable at 01/06/2009 @ 5:26pm
initially obama was going to appoint a former lieutenant of of tenants ['tenents lieutenants' ought to be some kind of musical, n'est pas?], so center right will sure bring some change, and believers in obambi will keep saying, as they did during the campaign, "oh he's just playing it safe, he's so cool, he just needs to get elected" - sure with the same money that used to elect republicans.
Posted by mikerol at 01/06/2009 @ 5:42pm
Posted by mikerol at 01/06/2009 @ 5:42pm
I donated money to the Obama campaign. I never donated anything to a Republican candidate.
I don't think he is playing it safe, I think he is doing what he thinks he needs to do to get the job done.
Posted by !immutable at 01/06/2009 @ 5:47pm
Posted by CripThink at 01/06/2009 @ 01:58am
"Let's hope that AIPAC and Feinstein will forgive the helpless Obama for this honest mistake."
Funny you should mention it, but Feinstein's office has reported that our AIPAC Stephin Fetchit has just apologized to Princess Diane for not having cleared everything with her.
Just as I towed you, Mr. CripThink, them AIPACs sho nuf cause big trouble fo Mr. O. Promise, Mr. O won't eva agin leave the plantation, Mr. CripThink.
Posted by john lowell at 01/06/2009 @ 5:51pm
>>>2nd, it is a candidates choice and then they should bear in mind that their decisions to meet or not meet may affect their electability.
It's simply a non issue with me.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 3:38pm<<<
As a Christian, I thought you had firmer principles. The fact that "any" candidate thinks that some particular lobbyist group is so important to interrupt their acceptance speech prep just prior to appearing at the convention should send off alarm bells with anyone who cares about the democratic process in this country.
WE THE PEOPLE, does NOT mean, WE THE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.
I thought you understood this LVL, but apparently not.
If we allow a handful of special interest groups to dominate the agenda in Washington with their exceedingly narrow agendas, then our democracy is worthless in this country.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/06/2009 @ 5:55pm
Tell me how you can balance a conservative and liberal view on issues like abortion, taxes,
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 5:48pm
I could tell you but you wouldn't agree so that would probably send us off in the wrong direction here.
As for "balance in all things" you aren't looking at it right. Not every cross street should have a red light. If I take a handful of dirt from your lawn am I stealing. It is rarely good to go to extremes.
Posted by !immutable at 01/06/2009 @ 5:56pm
Actually we do. I don't consider Horowitz an extremist; but he was one as a leftist in his youth.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 4:14pm | warn this person
Check out 'The Professors' by David Horowitz. If this isn't a McCarthy like tirade and witch hunt please let me know exactly what point the author is trying to make.
'During the week of October 21, far-right wing operative and former communist agitator David Horowitz deployed his allies to college campuses America to spout crude anti-Muslim invective. He called this event "Islamofascism Awareness Week." Among Horowitz's stable of campus speakers were noted Islam experts Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.
"Islamofascism Awareness Week" was, from the beginning, little more than a marathon fashion show for the paranoid style. But it was not until Horowitz muscled his way onto the campus of his alma mater, Columbia University, on October 26 that his event attained the commanding heights of reactionary hysteria.
Pacing the stage like a drunken circus clown impersonating some bygone demagogue, and standing beneath a massive image of a woman being shot in the head, Horowitz launched into a long, frenetic rant about his own persecution at the hands of a shadowy liberal conspiracy.
Though Horowitz devoted portions of his tirade to attacks on the Muslim Students Association, which he sought to paint as a front for virtually every Islamist group that strikes fear in the heart of his culturally deprived conservative peanut gallery, he seemed more comfortable lashing out at his perceived oppressors -- liberal professors, leftists, and the Democratic party -- than he did at any so-called "Islamofascists.".......
The Demons of David Horowitz, Max Blumenthal, 11/06/07, The Huffington Post, Excerpt.
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 6:15pm
Panetta will at least have the stature, connections, and the political sense to see through all the BS and get Obama the accurate intelligence he needs. Jane Harmon would be a disaster in this regard, and Feinstein knows this.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/06/2009 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Funny that Feinstein and Harman had no problem with Michael Hayden....
"So, to recap: the extremely unpopular Bush nominates as CIA Director (a) an active military general who (b) is a close ally of Dick Cheney, (c) is the person most responsible for, and associated with, the illegal NSA program, and (d) has caused a serious break between Bush and his most reliable Congressional allies. And the first instinct of Democrats like Feinstein and Harman is to prevent any Democratic message unity on this issue and to jump to the defense of the President by defending his pick and insisting that the NSA scandal not even be talked about."
Excerpt: Helpful Democrats Run to Bush's Rescue, 05/06/08, Glenn Greenwald
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 6:51pm
5 Richest Members of Congress
Four out of the five richest members are Democrats
Posted September 26, 2008
Rep. Jane Harman (D, Calif.): $215.11 million Sen. Herb Kohl (D, Wis.): $215.85 million Sen. John Kerry (D, Mass.): $213.8 million Rep. Darrell Issa (R, Calif.): $158.58 million Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, W.Va.): $79.4 million
(According to the September 10 issue of Roll Call and compiled from the most recent data available)
Source: Roll Call
US News and World Report
Posted by OneVote at 01/06/2009 @ 6:53pm
Balance in life is good. However, there cannot be balance in all things. Do you steal from some in order to balance out not stealing from others? Do you run every other red light? Tell me how you can balance a conservative and liberal view on issues like abortion, taxes, Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 5:48pm
Actually you can have balance in most everything. Your example are asinine. How do you balance out people stealing? You punish them? How do you balance out people running red lights? You punish them too. The reason you think you can't balance all things is because you don't know what it is to be balanced. Moderates are the people who realize both sides are just extreme mirrors. This country is founded on achieving a balance in views. Not by allowing one side to rule everything. You can find balance in a conservative view of abortion and liberal view it's just that those in the extremes will never allow the balanced view to be the one they submit to because they aren't looking for mutually equitable solutions they are just looking to push through their extreme view.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/06/2009 @ 7:41pm
Conversely, moderates are people with no core beliefs and therefore cannot be trusted to make decisions based upon any real consideration of the evidence. They are those that historically have been shown the most likely to be swayed by superficial factors rather than any firm convictions. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 5:21pm
By the way I love how you make these sweeping blanket generalizations with absolutely no factual ground to stand on.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/06/2009 @ 7:43pm
How do you find a balanced view to abortion? You either kill the baby or follow the normal path to delivery and life. There is no moderating view on abortion. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 8:24pm
Ahh but you can find a balanced method of governing it. The view is irrelevant. How you mediate between two parties is.That is what I mean when I say achieving balance. You will never take in both sides at the same time BUT my view on abortion for instance is that while I personally would never recommend an abortion to someone and would not seek it as a path if I got someone pregnant, I do not feel the need to inject my personal beliefs into other peoples bedrooms. That's what being pro-choice is. It's not being pro-abortion, it's allowing people to choose for themselves.
Another example. I am not homosexual. I have homosexual friends. I have no care about their sex lives or anyone's sexual orientation because it does not affect my life. I don't care what you do in the privacy of your bedroom as long as it isn't hurting anyone. I believe gays SHOULD be allowed to get married not because it affects me personally but because since right now Marriage has government incentives then everyone must be protected equally and allowed to marry whoever they want. Until the government is taken out of marriage then it is subject to equal protection.
I don't want to get into a debate about abortion or homosexual marriage but my point is that the middle view in the world is that you have your convictions and moral stances but you don't feel the need to force them on others, instead you give people a choice. Kind of like how conservatives want to be able to decide who they give their money to without being forced to through taxes.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/06/2009 @ 9:26pm
Former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter had briefed Senator Feinstein before the 2002 vote, and presented evidence that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament and could in no way be a threat to U.S. national security. According to Ritter, "I had her look me in the eye and I asked her if she had seen any credible evidence contradicting my conclusions. She said she had not."
Similarly, I was among a number of scholars, arms control analysts, and other constituents who briefed her staff on how -- given the ongoing strict international sanctions imposed on that country and rigorous UN inspections through the end of 1998 -- there was no way for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to have reconstituted his biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs. Citing reports from the UN, reputable think tanks, and recognized arms control experts -- as well as articles from respected peer-reviewed academic journals -- we thought we had made a convincing case that Iraq was no longer a threat to the United States or its neighbors.
Despite all this, Senator Feinstein insisted that Iraq somehow remained a "consequential threat" to the national security of the United States and claimed that Iraq still possessed biological and chemical weapons. And, in an effort to defend Bush's call for a U.S. invasion, she tried to discredit the UN inspections regime that had successfully disarmed Iraq by falsely claiming that "arms inspections, alone, will not force disarmament."
Similarly, even though the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency had correctly noted in 1998 that Iraq's nuclear program had been completely eliminated, Feinstein also falsely claimed that Saddam Hussein "is engaged in developing nuclear weapons."
Posted by Metteyya at 01/06/2009 @ 9:58pm
Frikk'n terror-fying. Ritter's a hero. With dems like Feinstein, some version of the same thing could happen again.
Posted by winyahn at 01/06/2009 @ 10:12pm
Panetta: we'll see, doesn;t seem to be a great choice. He'll have two great challenges: professionalism (degraded by Bush and Hayes) and politicization (escalated by Bush).
On the other hand, half of recent top echelon CIA people now serve as advisers and consultants for private security, contractor firms and 'think tanks' so many of the difficult guys are out of the picture.
Posted by yaldabaoth at 01/07/2009 @ 12:24am
<i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 5:21pm </i>
Moderate and extreme are relative rather than absolute terms. Those you consider moderates are simply more moderate and less extreme than you, and those you consider extremists are simply more extreme and less moderate than you. That means two things:
1) You have no basis to attack those who consider themselves moderates for being too noncommital or waffling too much unless you can prove why your exact balance of moderation and extremism is the right one
2) The argument you use to justify your position really seems to mean that there is a positive correlation between level of extremism and sincerity of principles. If people more moderate than you are less principled than you are (and that's bad), it follows that people who are LESS moderate than you are MORE principled than you are (and that's good). This, in turn, means that the more extreme someone's position is, the better.
I just don't understand why this position makes sense. A person who holds a moderate viewpoint often recognizes that in most controversies, a number of different, important and clashing values are at stake. In many cases, no one value (ex: equality and liberty) can serve as absolute trump cards, so thoughtful moral reflection involves a balancing of those conflicting concerns. This inquiry isn't unprincipled at all; to the contrary, it's arguably MORE principled because it takes into consideration the multiplicity of principles that come into play rather than simply assuming that one of them automatically trumps.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/07/2009 @ 01:24am
Posted by Thrawn at 01/07/2009 @ 01:24am
Very nice.
Posted by !immutable at 01/07/2009 @ 09:09am
'The only things you find in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead armadillahs.' -- James Carville
Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/07/2009 @ 09:57am
Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/07/2009 @ 09:57am
Cool, I got a Carville quote too-
"Secondly, 2009 will be a year in which the Republican Party will be confronted with a near catastrophic ideological rift. There is no obvious Republican leader on the horizon, and the party is caught between its Southern/talk-radio base and the rest of the country on whether they should oppose or cooperate with Obama's administration.
The combination of the lack of an obvious leader and the general political combustibility of the Republican Party will lead to a dangerous fissure that will plague it until the 2012 election cycle."---James Carville www.cnn.com
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 10:27am
There is no moderating view on abortion.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 8:24pm
Actually, Larry, isn't YOUR view on abortion, atleast as far as what can or cannot be done about it...somewhat "moderate"?
You've already said you are NOT a proponent of banning abortion legally, but "winning over hearts and minds."
Which means you've already accepted NOT using the power of the Government to "stop the killing of a baby"...which is more "moderate" than many in the "pro-life" community.
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 10:29am
Nice rebuke to Feinstein and Rockafella on Countdown last night. Rachel Maddow continues her excellent work, and cuts Feinstein a "new" one.
The Panetta pick, in context, looks very good.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28529928
Posted by OneVote at 01/07/2009 @ 11:50am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/07/2009 @ 11:26am
Well, you may be "extreme" to the "pro-lifers", Larry....but given you don't favor Government sanction against abortion...
that WOULD put you closer to the pro-choice position (despite your moral misgivings) than them...ergo, you're a "moderate" on aborton as it comes to changing its legal status.
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 12:10pm
That's why I'm considered not moderate but outside the box on marijuana drug laws, and on not requiring govt sanction of marriage which is for me, purely a religious contract. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/07/2009 @ 11:26am
No LVL, that view point is considered moderate. Just like mine that you don't need to force through legislation to get people to change. That is considered moderate because you are balanced between yes what they are doing is wrong, no we should not FORCE them to stop instead let them choose. What you just described is by definition the views of a moderate. Someone who can take into account multiple principled stances and weigh one against another without weighing one so heavily that the scales are completely unbalanced.
The "extreme" point of view would have been to say we should ban abortion across the board. Your point of view that abortion is murder is extreme but your political point of view that we should not legislate the chance is moderate. So face it, like me you have a moderate view on abortion when applied to government.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/07/2009 @ 12:12pm
That's why I'm considered not moderate but outside the box on marijuana drug laws, and on not requiring govt sanction of marriage which is for me, purely a religious contract. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/07/2009 @ 11:26am
Oh by the way. "Outside the box" is generally just another way of saying moderate when you don't want to admit to being so. As Thrawn said. Moderates generally are people who can take multiple moral principles and weigh them against each other with a level head instead of just weighting one principle and judging everything off that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/07/2009 @ 12:14pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/07/2009 @ 12:12pm
It's also a reason I DEFEND LVLIB when others attack him on being "another fundy/Righty who wants to ban abortion"....he doesn't. He believes abortion is "murder"...but doesn't support making it illegal because (A) he knows it wouldn't work or (B) he knows it's not a popular position or both.
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 12:36pm
Posted by OneVote at 01/07/2009 @ 11:50am
Rachel invited Feinstein to her show to explain the co-conspirator role she played with Bush and Cheney in the "intelligence lapses" that led to war with Iraq, but Feinstein declined.
I wonder why?
Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2009 @ 12:39pm
I wonder why?
Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2009 @ 12:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Surely a rhetorical question Mett...lol.
Feinstein's style is back door sesssion and secretive, masked behind that pasted on Moma's smile which is a phony as her morals and ideals. The fact that she has continued oversight responsibilities over intelligence is an affront to our Constitution.
Posted by OneVote at 01/07/2009 @ 12:50pm
It's also a reason I DEFEND LVLIB when others attack him on being "another fundy/Righty who wants to ban abortion"....he doesn't. He believes abortion is "murder"...but doesn't support making it illegal because (A) he knows it wouldn't work or (B) he knows it's not a popular position or both. Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 12:36pm
He understands practicality and pragmatism which is what a moderate is. A moderate is someone who can look at the extremes and see what will work to appease both sides. That's what he's not getting. You can be the most extreme person when it comes to morals but still theoretically be a political moderate.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/07/2009 @ 1:56pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/07/2009 @ 1:56pm
Ironically, our defense here of LVLIB probably makes him quite uncomfortable.
He doesn't WANT to be known as a "moderate" (especially on a social issue like abortion), given both his previous statement (Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 8:24pm)...and to be "outed" to his fellow right-wingers as a "pro-lifer who realizes making abortion illegal is a non-starter."
But cheer up, Larry, on most other things (from Israel to the Constitution)...you're as extremist as they come....heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 2:42pm
Katrina vanden Heuvel, Support blackcoptermedia.com
Krazy Panetta, I could run the CIA. This country is whacked. 8 years of Bush, I am fried.We shall see what happens in January then we have 2 years to vote some bums out. I am speechless. go blackcoptermedia.com hope you grow, those dudes are weird, who write for them check out their posters, surreal. They are onto someting big.
Posted by thesid at 01/07/2009 @ 2:43pm
I think we can all agree that LVLIB is batshit crazy, and clearly suffers from several mental disorders. He's like a psychologist's wet dream with all the self-contradicting weirdness he likes to share with us all.
Just because he's not calling for a military intervention in the world of abortion does NOT make him a moderate.
Posted by TexasFlood at 01/07/2009 @ 2:55pm
Which of the following people have foreign policy or anti-terrorism experience?
Barack Obama, President-elect
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State designee
Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary designee
Leon Panetta, CIA director designee
Eric Holder, Attorney General designee
Posted by Mistral at 01/07/2009 @ 3:54pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 01/07/2009 @ 2:55pm
Not speaking generically, Texas....we were talking about abortion only.
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 4:32pm
Posted by Mistral at 01/07/2009 @ 3:54pm
Which foreign policy expert did you vote for in 2000, Mistral?
(A) the Vice-President in office for 8 years who had attended National Security Council meetings and met with world leaders?
(B) the Texas governor who said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." (Nashua, New Hampshire (January 27, 2000)?
(Yes, frosty, I did too...but admit it was a mistake...will Mistral?)
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 4:43pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 4:43pm </i>
Well, I know this question wasn't directed to me, but like Mask, I regret my 2000 decision for Bush.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/07/2009 @ 6:13pm
<i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/07/2009 @ 7:23pm </i>
I have to say this: I was not a huge fan of Gore in the big picture. However, had I known how bad Bush would prove to be in many respects, I frankly think Gore would have been a lesser evil.
To what destruction of the US do you refer? I think it would be a stretch for me to claim that 9/11 wouldn't have happened, but I think that for sure the Iraq situation would have been different. Clinton spoke about action against Iraq, so it's entirely possible Gore would have done it...but I have a suspicion he would have actually had an endgame plan before he made a move.
Would the US have suffered a terrorist attack? Even if you think our perimeter defenses wouldn't be as good (an iffy proposition), we also wouldn't have tortured people (which has been a HUGE recruiting boon for al Qaeda) We also might have gotten someone slightly more competent to run FEMA AND Lousiana might have gotten a bit more levee funding. No, I don't think FEMA is completely to blame (Louisiana's governor did some pretty stupid stuff that made things far worse than they would have been), but they could have done a lot better.
What about the economic front? We haven't exactly prospered. It's probably unfair to say that the real estate collapse wouldn't have happened (since Democrats were also complicit in it from their end), but maybe it would have been easier without the strain of money leaking out into a poorly-managed occupation.
I tend to consider myself a moderate Republican, but I have to confess that Bush has screwed up pretty badly. I'm not sure I'm a huge fan of Gore (and definitely not Kerry), but I think they would have been hard-pressed to screw up as badly has he has.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/07/2009 @ 8:07pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/07/2009 @ 7:02pm
Keep denying LVL. We all know you are being pragmatic and therefore moderate. Like I said being morally extreme does not disallow politically moderate views.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/07/2009 @ 8:14pm
Posted by Thrawn at 01/07/2009 @ 8:07pm
I am of the same mind. I didn't like Gore or Kerry. However Bush was not much of an alternative either. I voted Kerry and would have voted Gore. Bush has been a perpetual screw up in a lot of sense and the country has paid a price for his mistakes. Do I think Gore and Kerry would have kept all of this from happening. I don't know. But I certainly think they would have done at least a marginally better job.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/07/2009 @ 9:06pm
Be lenient with me, but the comments of most of you usual suspects are a real pain in the Panettas.
Posted by WWW at 01/07/2009 @ 10:06pm
<i>Posted by WWW at 01/07/2009 @ 10:06pm </i>
Haha nice. A bit labored, maybe, but still clever nonetheless.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/07/2009 @ 11:03pm
Actually, Eric Holder does have some terrorism experience:
'There are other Clinton-era actions ... including leniency granted in 1999 to 16 former members of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, or FALN, which advocates Puerto Rican independence and was linked to about 130 bombings that killed six and injured dozens from 1974 to 1983.
Former President Carter, a Democrat, has said that many other Clinton pardons "were quite questionable, including about 40 not recommended by the Justice Department." ...'
http://www.latimes.com/ news/nationworld/nation/ la-na-holder 20-2008nov20,0,5171834,full.story
Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/08/2009 @ 12:44pm