Bill Frist, off the deep end
 

Frist sez:

I've never heard or read him saying that. Frist must have better sources than we do.

If not, Frist is a lying whore -- to combine two of BB's favorite words. I suppose its a prerequisite for the job.


That is a stupid thing to say -- as if a deputy level government beaurocrat is THE key to government policy. If that's the case just admit that Wolfowitz runs the Bush administration's defense policy. If not, shut the fuck up you pathetic whore.

P.S. Talk about pointing fingers? How is Clarke shifting any blame?

God forbid that Bill Frist ever start putting politics above principle. Tom Delay too.

You think his testimony to Congress was not pre-cleared with at least Rice? May well have gone higher.

In any event -- the issue if much more one of emphasis and interpretation, not "lying" -- right Bilmore? That's partly why this is so damn bad, it won't and can't go anywhere legally, but it is an effort to destroy someone who dared to criticize the Administration.

This from the party of Admiral John Poindexter. I guess that Clarke should have just kept repeating "I do not recall" when he testified.

Hmmm. He resigned in January 2003 -- finished the book by late 2003. The WH held the book in security "review" for three months. Then acted shocked by its claims. Sounds right. You got us there Bill -- now why don't you go dissect some more live cats?

Well, if Clarke was solely responsible for the U.S. counter-terrorism for the past 10 years -- who else should apologize? God knows no one else looks like they are planning to do so.

Ok. You got me. Every dime I can contribute, to the limits, for the first time ever.

Frist tries to slither back under that rock
 

Sounds to me like we need to get that bitch under oath. He's a joke as "Majority Leader" anyway (i.e. can't push his hand through a paper bag)-- the GOP should be glad to see him go.

S_A_M

That is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
 

If he contradicted himself. I'm asking for the basis for that assertion. All I see is a lot of people slinging mud at his name.

Because he has no heart - ironic, don't you think
 

He's too nice a guy. You need a real douchebag to keep your party in line (e.g. Tip O'Neill, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott)

Which, should the Dems take back the House, you've got it made. That Pelosi is a real shrew.

Because he has no heart - ironic, don't you think
 

He's douchebag enough for the job. His guys get angry at him because he can't make the ten most moderate Democrats vote like conservative Republicans.

That is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
 

Hence the request to declassify.

My suspicion is that Frist knows some non-public information and this is why he has come out the way he did. He does not exactly have a record of a gloves-off, fist flying partisan.

And SAM, save it with your rightous indignation. These are the same tactics we saw with the Clinton Administration (see eg, the attacks on Paula Jones, Ken Starr, Juanita Broderick, Linda Tripp, Newt, etc.). Anybody that went after WJC or the administration. I'm not saying any of this is right on either side, but it is part of the game these days in DC.

That is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
 

You are so trusting of him that you think he knows something else even when he says he doesn't.

He has Karl Rove to thank for his job.

Because he has no heart - ironic, don't you think
 

Actually, I agree. I've always thought that Lott and Delay were real bastards, but you've got to admit they got/get things done.

As for Pelosi, she _might_ be tough and mean enough to fight the House GOP leadership toe to toe (talk about a collection of hard cases) but she's starting from a position of relative weakness.

S_A_M

That is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
 

Started working as an analyst in the OSD in the Nixon administration (1973). Depty Asst. Sec'y of State for Intelligence during the Reagan Administration. Asst Sec'y of State for Politico-Military Affairs during the Bush I Administration.

Left federal service in March, 2003.

P.S. to Bilmore: I'd be surprised if it were about money for Clarke. Greedy people don't make careers working for the Feds (although he could have a bunch of kids in college now, who knows?). if his book does misrepresent or misinterpret the situation, I'd wager its ego. All accounts say he is/was a very aggressive, abrasive, (and very smart) guy.

That is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
 

But then he says that he doesn't _know_ of any discrepancies (which suggests that he doesn't have specfics in mind -- just coming out to attack).

This may not have been Frist's idea. He wouldn't be doing this unless it was approved by or coordinated with either the WH or the RNC.

So, why does that mean we should not feel or express righteous indignation? Bill Clinton is hardly a good role model. I've already said that I didn't vote for him in 1996 because I knew by then that he'd do or say anything to get/keep power. I'm surprised that you hold your own side to a similar low standard.

I don't accept that this is how it should be in DC. However, I couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

S_A_M

P.S. Ken Starr earned what he got.

There's no Mod in moderate
 

The reason why I nominated you for Politics Mod is because - as Less always likes to say - gridlock is good for the country.

This last statement of yours is the proof of the pudding. I dare you to name 10 moderate Dem Senators. Unless, of course, you're counting idiots like Snowe and Domenici.

There's no Mod in moderate
 

I know you catch a lot of flak for this decision, but you should have neither the time nor the inclination to explain yourself to any person who rises and sleeps under the influence of the very Forum you provide and then questions the manner in which you provide it. You should just ask that they say "thank you," and went on their way.

There's no Mod in moderate
 

The challenge is to name 10 moderate Senators total - regardless of party. I belive most of them are the few surviving "liberal" Republicans -- and the list would include the two afore-mentioned "idiots." McCain passes for a moderate in the Senate nowadays.

S_A_M

There's no Mod in moderate
 

HRC is moderate these days, but that's just for positioning.

There's no Mod in moderate
 

Maybe so. She may be smarter than Bill -- remains to be seen if she can equal him as a politician.

S_A_M

P.S. I hear that Clarke's on the talk shows today supporting the request by the GOP leaders to declassify his 2002 Congressional testimony -- says there are no contradictions.

That's the right approach for him to take if he views this as a fight he intends to win -- and it should not be unexpected to the administration folks who know him well. I agree with you club, I just can't see how spending more time on this issue benefits the GOP. I'd be shocked if there are any outright provable factual contradictions -- so perjury would not be a realistic outcome. (But even if it were -- would it help the GOP electorally to bring Clarke up on charges?)

This stuff, plus a group of 9-11 families calling for Ms. Rice to testify in public, are just not the things that the Administration would want to be occupying the press now. Is it just that some of the strategists just can't bear the idea of _not_ trying to crush him? (Perhaps its some strategy to draw the poison quickly.)

P.P.S. I'm reading the book now, and it is clear that Clarke is not a man overly troubled by self-doubt. It is also clear that he is mad as hell. However, it strikes me that all the coverage of the passages of his book about pre-9/11 preparation misses the main thrust.

Clarke is indeed critical of the Bush Administration as not taking the threat of terrorism seriously enough or acting quickly enough pre-9/11, but he is much more critical of the Administration's post-9/11 reactions and policies. He is most critical of the decision to invade Iraq -- articulating criticisms/predictions heard from some on the left and right before and after the war.

Clarke says the decision: (a) was driven by guys who had a hard-on for Iraq from the beginning (he really seems to dislike Wolfowitz -- and has some interesting quotes from P.W. pre-9/11, asking essentially why anyone gave an F about al Qaeda or bin Laden); (b) wasted resources that should have been devoted to crushing Al Qaeda, forcing the U.S. to underspend on continuing efforts in Afgahnistan, and elsewhere; (c) proved to be a tremendously potent recruiting tool and inspiration for Al Qaeda and jihadists throughout the world; (d) was unnecessary, because Iraq had no real connection to al Qaeda as all U.S. intelligence professionals knew, and because Iraq posed no immediate or serious threat to the U.S.; and (e) thus fractured our alliances, killed the U.S. in world public opinion, and set back the cause of democracy in other Middle East nations, for no good reason.

I'm a little surprised that this hasn't received more play. Is the public just tired of the Iraq debate -- and the 9/11 stuff seemed more shocking and relevant?