Politics: J'accuse!

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Considering the fate of its founder, Christianity has, at best, mixed feelings about the DP.

Christianity may have mixed feelings about the DP, but talk about it on the radio and the FCC is gonna nail your ass!

aV

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap

but when you forget to make the demand, directing federal marshals to go back and confiscate the tapes from reporters is, shall we say, a poor way to demonstrate one's fidelity to the Constitution that you appeared to discuss and hold in such high regard.

what's the difference? It's not like the policy was ad hoc (and I'm not even sure that it would make a difference if it were). He forgot to make his usual admonition, and the marshall's actions were curative of that failure. Either way, no tape recording of the speech exists and the effect on speech (that is, the reporters' ability to communicate information to the public) is no different. This is not like some "waived the privilege" analysis. It's his prerogative--right or wrong--to ask that his speeches not be recorded as a condition of his giving them. Why does it matter how he achieves that objective, so long as it's not creating some secondary hardship (e.g., "we didn't take notes because we had the recordings)?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ah, so Rice was too busy doing PR to stop Atta, et al.?

No, I mean she's managing PR now. We jaded people knew that already, but she managed to make that clear to everyone who was watching.

And the tactical/strategic thingy has no bearing on "why didn't you take a proportionate action to an attack that happened on Clinton's watch?", when the answer was, instead of continuing the swatting flies approach, we (Bush) wanted to basically wage war on AQ (Kerrey's asymetrical approach)?

If there was some substance behind the distinction, fine, but since Clarke has already made clear that there isn't, and she's really not disputing him, it's a soundbite for consumption by people who's attention to devote to these hearings will not last longer than the headlines at the top of the hour.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
One of the commissioners admitted just this in an interview yesterday, saying that they thought it was important for the public to see her.

I would be more upset that the commission is putting on a show, except that (1) half of them are Republicans, and (2) the only reason we're having real hearings is the public pressure -- the White House would be happy to stonewall any inquiry. If it's not happening in public, it's not happening.

That from the perspective of someone who already suggested I might rather have this testimony happening behind closed doors.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No one suggested that Kerrey's Medal of Honor immunized him from charges of bad behavior. Just that it is a little much to call him "anti-American."

Kerrey left part of one of his legs in Vietnam, which I'd wager is more than Not Me has sacrificed for her country.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
what's the difference? It's not like the policy was ad hoc (and I'm not even sure that it would make a difference if it were). He forgot to make his usual admonition, and the marshall's actions were curative of that failure. Either way, no tape recording of the speech exists and the effect on speech (that is, the reporters' ability to communicate information to the public) is no different. This is not like some "waived the privilege" analysis. It's his prerogative--right or wrong--to ask that his speeches not be recorded as a condition of his giving them. Why does it matter how he achieves that objective, so long as it's not creating some secondary hardship (e.g., "we didn't take notes because we had the recordings)?

Let me be less unclear. I'm not saying that he doesn't have the right to demand that his public statements are not recorded (though I find it to be an odd fetish).

I'm saying that the spectacle of having government agents take away the recordings because you forgot to say so beforehand is, at a minimum, a colossally stupid move. Why he would do this, now, for what appears to be such an innocuous speech, is baffling to me.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If you have a cite for any official Jewish teaching in support of your statement, I'd be much obliged.

Would the Talmud do? The death penalty is allowed under Talmudic law. There are a variety of legal hurdles that must be met, including at least 2 witnesses to the crime, but if those legal hurdles are cleared, the sentence can be death for certain crimes.

BTW - under Talmudic law there are different standards for gentiles and jews. It is much harder to put to death a jew under Talmudic law than a gentile. For instance, you only need one witness to sentence the gentile.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Yeah, that's why the direct descendants of the people who wrote it are in such favor of polygamy and practice it so enthusiastically.

Who are you identifying as the "direct descendants of the people who wrote it"?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap


I'm saying that the spectacle of having government agents take away the recordings because you forgot to say so beforehand is, at a minimum, a colossally stupid move. Why he would do this, now, for what appears to be such an innocuous speech, is baffling to me.

Okay, fair point. Had he done the following at the end (or in the middle of) the speech, would it be alright (putting aside the wisdom of his policy, which, I agree, is, at best, unfortunate.): "Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention this at the outset, but I have a policy that my speeches not be recorded. If anyone recorded this speech, I would appreciate your erasing the tape. One of my aides will be checking with a couple of folks who may have been recording to confirm any recordings are erased."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Kerrey left part of one of his legs in Vietnam, which I'd wager is more than Not Me has sacrificed for her country.

But what does that have to do with his behavior now? Are you saying that if someone is injured in a war, unless you have also been injured in a war you cannot criticize their behavior?

Well then I guess you better take back everything you said about Bob Dole when he was running for president.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Okay, fair point. Had he done the following at the end (or in the middle of) the speech, would it be alright (putting aside the wisdom of his policy, which, I agree, is, at best, unfortunate.): "Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention this at the outset, but I have a policy that my speeches not be recorded. If anyone recorded this speech, I would appreciate your erasing the tape. One of my aides will be checking with a couple of folks who may have been recording to confirm any recordings are erased."

I am thinking I may try that line if I ever find myself being recorded. Because I have a policy against to, you know. It may not work as well for me, since I don't have a federal marshal to confiscate and erase the tapes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
But what does that have to do with his behavior now? Are you saying that if someone is injured in a war, unless you have also been injured in a war you cannot criticize their behavior?

If you're staking out the position that asking tough questions about what happened before 9/11 is un-American, there's probably a job waiting for you in Washington, at least until November.

Well then I guess you better take back everything you said about Bob Dole when he was running for president.

I don't recall saying anything about Bob Dole back then, assclam. The Viagra thing came later.

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Me
Well then I guess you better take back everything you said about Bob Dole when he was running for president.

Speaking of running, here is the WSJ Op-ed take today:

Rice on the Record
April 9, 2004; Page A8

We predicted yesterday's Condoleezza Rice show would be more about the 9/11 Commissioners themselves than anything the National Security Adviser had to say. But we confess we were unprepared for Bob Kerrey's Vice Presidential audition.

We thought the former Senator had more class than to preface his remarks with a condescending allusion to the fact that Ms. Rice is a black woman. ("I'm very impressed . . . [by] the story of your life.") Or to then complain that her attempts to answer his monologue were cutting into his time. In their zeal to show all the things that went undone before 9/11, Mr. Kerrey and other Democrats on the Commission inadvertently underscored all that President Bush has done since. Think of it as one long endorsement of pre-emption.

One genuinely interesting news nugget came in Ms. Rice's opening statement. There she gave details of the Bush Administration's first major national security directive, completed September 4, 2001. It covered "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaeda." Obviously this didn't prevent the events of a week later. But it does suggest, contra Richard Clarke, that the Administration was attentive to the terrorist threat.

Mr. Kerrey and his fellow partisans made much of an August 6, 2001, Presidential briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside United States." But Ms. Rice properly observed that there is no obvious response to non-specific warnings that "something very big may happen." She likewise dismissed Democratic insinuations of a bureaucratic "silver bullet," such as dealing with issues at the "principals" level: Unlike his predecessor, President Bush was already conferring with his Director of Central Intelligence on a daily basis.

The major problems that existed pre-9/11 weren't management issues but longstanding policies that required Presidential leadership and in some cases acts of Congress to change. One such policy, Ms. Rice noted, was our approach to Pakistan, which the Clinton Administration had been sanctioning at the cost of harming our ability to tackle the Taliban. The Bush Administration's embrace of General Musharraf is vulnerable to criticism, but there can be no question that in the larger war on terror it has paid big dividends -- most recently with the exposure of the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network.

In another arena Ms. Rice might have blamed Democrats of the John Kerry stripe for another barrier to effective counterterrorism. Instead, she politely limited herself to pointing out the 1970s-era laws forbidding information-sharing between intelligence and law-enforcement officials. It was only the much reviled Patriot Act that finally changed that.

There were, finally, an alarming number of lacunae in immigration policy and aviation security, underscored in questioning by former Navy Secretary John Lehman. Fingerprinting visitors, hardening cockpit doors, and arming pilots are among the steps now being taken to close these holes.

The key point here is that a 9/11 Commission interested in making a lasting contribution to U.S. security ought to be focusing on the need for pro-active policies at home and abroad rather than obsessing over the level of "urgency" within the pre-9/11 Bush Administration. "My greatest concern," Ms. Rice noted, "is that as September 11 recedes from memory, that we will begin to unlearn the lessons." Judging from yesterday's hearing, some people already have.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Um, for Catholics, the Bible is Not Relevant.

And everyone knows that Catholics are the original and true Christians and all the other groups are just wannabes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I am thinking I may try that line if I ever find myself being recorded. Because I have a policy against to, you know. It may not work as well for me, since I don't have a federal marshal to confiscate and erase the tapes.

Are you still pissed that Dan Quayle took Air Force 2, instead of commercial, on a couple of golf outings?

What is the objection, the use of a federal marshall, as opposed to him doing it himself? Methinks you'd be objecting if he'd asked the law school dean to do the same thing.

And I doubt this is the federal marshall of the wild west days. It's some former FBI guy who's gotten fat and lazy, and probably spends most of his time sitting at the X-ray machine at the local federal courthouse reminding you to remove things from his pockets.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
One genuinely interesting news nugget came in Ms. Rice's opening statement. There she gave details of the Bush Administration's first major national security directive, completed September 4, 2001. It covered "not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaeda." Obviously this didn't prevent the events of a week later. But it does suggest, contra Richard Clarke, that the Administration was attentive to the terrorist threat.

It is impossible to find this "genuinely interesting" if you have read the discussion of it and the months leading up to it in Richard Clarke's book. It would not surprise me to learn that the troglodytes on the WSJ editorial board haven't bothered to read the book, but it also would not surprise me if they weren't being genuine.

The key point here is that a 9/11 Commission interested in making a lasting contribution to U.S. security ought to be focusing on the need for pro-active policies at home and abroad rather than obsessing over the level of "urgency" within the pre-9/11 Bush Administration.

None of this would be as big a deal if (1) the Bush Administration hadn't tried to squelch an inquiry for the longest time, and (2) Bush weren't running for President as the anti-terrorism president.