There's no Mod in moderate
 

You do realize that Jessup was eventually hoist on his own petard in that movie, right? At the end of the day, despite all the fun quotable stuff Jessup says, it was just another Aaron Sorkin joint. Either you know this, and are being ironic, or you were one of the people writing letters to CBS in 1971 saying that Norman Lear should be fairer to Archie because he's a good man.

There's no Mod in moderate
 

I'm not 60 fucking years old.

There's no Mod in moderate
 

The public is finished with the Iraq debate. You cannot blame them - no one is going to shed a tear for SH and because there were no homeland attacks, it is hard to prove in a tangible way that it harmed the war on terror.

There's no Mod in moderate
 

Another urban myth deflated by the ever-huggable Al Franken.

Oh please tell us again about how there is no Easter Bunny?

There's no Mod in moderate
 

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

1. The Democrats would have to own up to the fact that they either have no balls or are incompetent. After all, the Senate democrats could have prevented authorization of war on Iraq.

2. When the public's choices are whether a few hundred billion will be wasted -- A. on Bush's war in Iraq, B. the Republicans buying votes from rich people, or C. the Democrats' buying votes from the senior citizens and poor people -- the war on iraq doesn't look so bad.

There's no Mod in moderate
 

I'm a little surprised that no one has noticed that the story Clarke is telling now is essentially the same story told in the Bob Woodward puff piece Bush at War. If Clarke's account is inaccurate, Woodward's is as well. Why isn't the White House attacking Woodward's book?

There's no Mod in moderate
 

The story is OK as hagiography, but not if it's criticism.

Slave -- I said the 10 "most moderate" Dem senators, not that there are 10 moderates. Pay attention.

This is Appropriate
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3574503.stm

[French legal team to defend SH]

There's no Mod in moderate
 

Times change. Right now at gitmo you can get away with beating guys up providing they don't catch you answering the call to prayer, or facing Mecca and whatnot.

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

Just to add to this, I'm pretty certain that I read late last week or early this weekend that Clarke basically dedicated his most of his life to this issue. In fact, it made him sound as if he was rather obsessed with his job, and indicated that he was not one who shrank from going toe to toe with people if he needed to get his point across. The article I read stated that he was unmarried w/no kids, so that doesn't seem to be his motivation here. I would agree that the motivation probably isn't greed. I think his being pretty pissed off about what he sees as the failures (of both Clinton's and Bushes Administrations) that allowed 9/11 to happen, is what is behind this.

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

The Boston Globe had a fascinating article about Clarke this morning, much of it gleaned from interviews with childhood friends from the Boston Latin school and elsewhere, some of whom kept in touch. Basically indicated that he was about the only Republican around in those days, taking the more conservative positions regularly in debate, but a true and hard-core policy wonk from the outset. Read Foreign Affairs on the T. While his career was really made under Reagan and George I, when he was appointed to the National Security Council, he apparently has a very deep admiration for Clinton's command of the policy issues.

There's no Mod in moderate
 

I think the public is tired of all of this. Most seem to have moved on to the important campaign stuff - the hair, the attack ads, the gaffes, the elective surgeries. You know, the things with which we chose our leaders.

Nominations
 

Is someone missing something here?

Uh, has Bush?

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

The analysis piece on the Commission testimony which I read in the WaPo on Saturday noted that there is evidence/testimony that Clarke was constantly pressing the Clinton Administration to do more against terror/al Qaeda, but that many Clinton staffers thought he was "exaggerating" the al Qaeda threat, some "loathed" him, and some "wanted him fired."

This could place his 1998 promotion to Counter-Terror "Czar" in a new light. Did it come only after the embassy bombings had, in effect, proven Clarke right?

But despite everything Clarke was unable to prevent the 9-11 attacks -- and was left shitting a brick that afternoon when he learned that some of the names on the passenger manifests were known to the CIA -- but not previously to the FBI or the FAA -- as al Qaeda agents.

Pity poor Cassandra.

S_A_M

Nominations
 

Speaking of this, did anybody see 60 minutes last night on Pickering? What the DEMs are doing to him is frickin shameful. I particularly liked Medgar Evers' brother (who knows and has worked with Pickering) grilling the NAACP representative about the appointment.

Edited to chage Evers' to "Evers' brother"