Politics: J'accuse!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think we all understand that Hussein was the perp here.

The irony continues.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
The irony continues.

I knew you'd see it eventually.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Calling her one of the "primary authors" of that policy demonstrates either confusion on your part or hyperbole.

I disagree, but even if you were right on that point (and you aren't), the fact that she was involved is a huge conflict of interest given the role the wall played in failing to prevent 9/11. Recusing herself from parts of the testimony doesn't cure the conflict.

The topic under discussion is her conflict of interest and whether her presence on the commission impedes the ability of the commission to do the job they are supposed to be doing - figuring out what went wrong so that these problems can be solved to reduce the likelihood that this will happen again.

[dtb]

Originally posted by bilmore
In other news, representatives of raptors have formally asked the stegasauroses for absolution for eating their ancestors.

If I were my five-year-old, I would point out that raptors and stegasauruses lived about 50 million years apart. But the sentiment is a noble one by the raptors, nonetheless.

(He once asked me if there was a "Cretaceous Park" as
T-Rexes didn't live in the Jurassic Period, so there should really be a Cretaceous Park.)

[Not Me]

The breakdown of the approximately 700 US deaths in Iraq is approximately 200 non-hostile deaths and 500 hostile deaths.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/109/...ary_d%3A.shtml

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
The topic under discussion is her conflict of interest and whether her presence on the commission impedes the ability of the commission to do the job they are supposed to be doing - figuring out what went wrong so that these problems can be solved to reduce the likelihood that this will happen again.

Your arguments on this subject have crossed that hazy line into trollishness, so I am not going to bother with a substantive way. The attacks on Gorelick are transparently partisan, an effort to try to distract from the unpleasant news the commission is creating, and your inability to get beyond superficial invective is par for the course. But if you feel like engaging with anything that she said in that piece yesterday, post away.

[Replaced_Texan]

See article spoiling the cartoon strip here.

[Edited to make clear that if you read this article, it will tell you what's going to happen in Doonesbury later this week. -- T.S.]

My beef is with the following: "About 10 newspapers have called Universal Press with concerns about the strip, primarily with language the character uses after [SPOILER]", company spokeswoman Kathie Kerr said. "

What the fuck kind of language would a character have that wouldn't be totally understandable? Especially a character like him? Fuck that shit. This is why the comic strip industry developed the special character code language. If the newspapers are going to bitch, bitch about the substance of the storyline, and don't nitpick about the fucking language.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Posted by Mark Kleiman on his blog

The Clarke flap in retrospect

Now that the Richard Clarke flap has died down for the moment, the colossal irony of the whole affair is starting to sink in. Clarke is substantially more aggressive-minded in his approach to terrorism than either of the two administrations he served in. Yet the doves love him and the hawks hate him.

Which suggests to me that, for most of the people involved in the shouting match, it was more about November than it was about al-Qaeda. What seems to me unfair is having that partisanship projected on to Clarke.

As a hawkish Democrat (not as hawkish as Clarke, but pretty hawkish) I was relatively unconflicted. It was fun to see him do some well-deserved damage to Team Bush, and I can always hope that my co-partisans, having arrayed themselves on Clarke's side of the argument, will now be ready to listen to his advice.

If John Kerry is elected, and if Clarke doesn't join the Kerry administration, I'd be surprised if Kerry's policies turned out to be as aggressive as Clarke would like. In that case, I'd expect Clarke to be somewhat critical, and I'd expect the right wing to rediscover Clarke's expertise and public spirit.

[Still no takers, as far as I can see, among Clarke's blogospheric critics on the suggestion that they apologize for having relayed Bill Frist's reckless and now discredited charge of perjury. Don't make me start calling out names, now.]

Update Some liberal readers think the pro-Clarke/anti-Clarke camps are simply truth-lovers and those who would shoot the messenger. I doubt the love of truth follows such partisan lines (though it's true that some in the pro-Bush, pro-war camp have defended Clarke). My point was that it's odd to see people who regard Barbara Lee (who opposed invading Afghanistan after 9-11) as a heroine also regarding Richard Clarke (who wanted to go into Afghanistan before 9-11 to root out the al Qaeda base) as a hero. Similarly, though Clarke is a fundamentally a hawk -- he opposed invading Iraq because he thought it the wrong war, not because he's opposed to the aggressive use of military force -- the hawks have read him out of meeting for dissing the Prez.

I guess my reaction is that Kleiman is on to something, but goes astray by assuming that "aggressiveness" and where you are on the left/right spectrum are closely related. I have no problem at all with an aggressive counterterrorism policy. There is maybe an exception at the intersection with civil liberties, but I think the time that's spent discussing that intersection is vastly out of proportion to its importance in the counterterrorism world. Most of the action is in being proactive, creative and smart. Maybe there are people who regard Barbara Lee as a hero who are against those things, but I find it hard to take them too seriously. Some people on the left are opposed to any sort of foreign policy that involves shooting people, but many of us are motivated more by pragmatism than academic principles.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, as long as she says it's okay . . . .

Come on Bilmore, you're too smart and too honest to believe your implication.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Your arguments on this subject have crossed that hazy line into trollishness, so I am not going to bother with a substantive way. The attacks on Gorelick are transparently partisan, an effort to try to distract from the unpleasant news the commission is creating, and your inability to get beyond superficial invective is par for the course. But if you feel like engaging with anything that she said in that piece yesterday, post away.

You are absolutely ridiculous if you cannot admit that there is a conflict here and that this is all just a partisan attack on Gorelick.

Go read my past posts if you want to know what I have to say on this topic. There are plenty of them. Gorelick said nothing new in that article. She just repeated all the same things she has been saying in interviews.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

Assuming that you think this is true for terrorists who are U.S. citizens, how would you amend the Constitution to make this work?

The Warren court proved the Constitution can support anything.

The FBI doesn't give a rat's ass what libertarians and criminal rights activists think. And please note that I am not in either camp.

Oh yes it does. How many democrats would tolerate Mossad-level assasinations on American soil?

Now it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. That would be a CIA job, not an FBI job.

If you know so much, riddle me this: How is it legal for the CIA to conduct operations in the US, like assassinating US citizens on US soil?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
The Warren court proved the Constitution can support anything.

People who say that usually don't approve of it.

Oh yes it does. How many democrats would tolerate Mossad-level assasinations on American soil?

If you know so much, riddle me this: How is it legal for the CIA to conduct operations in the US, like assassinating US citizens on US soil?

I didn't realize that you were talking about U.S. soil. You don't really need to even ask those questions unless you interpret the Constitution in a way that not even the Warren Court would approve. How about this amendment: "The right of due process may be abridged when the executive branch, in its sole and unreviewable discretion, deems it appropriate in the interest of national security."

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

I didn't realize that you were talking about U.S. soil. You don't really need to even ask those questions unless you interpret the Constitution in a way that not even the Warren Court would approve. How about this amendment: "The right of due process may be abridged when the executive branch, in its sole and unreviewable discretion, deems it appropriate in the interest of national security."

If that don't fly, maybe we can just kidnacp them for interrogation and kill them if they resist arrest. Honest Abe suspended habeas corpus in the interest of national security.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
Go read the article if you want to know what I have to say on this topic. There are plenty of them.

Not Me said nothing new in her past posts. She just repeated all the same things she has been saying.

edited to fix tags, I think -- T.S.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

Not Me said nothing new in her past posts. She just repeated all the same things she has been saying.

I read Gorelick's article. I have also seen her speak on this topic in numerous interviews that she has given since Ashcroft testified before the Commission. The article doesn't say anything she hadn't already said in her interviews.

Nothing she says in the article changes the fact that she has one helluva big conflict and should be testifying before the Commission, not sitting on the Commission. Her presence on the Commission will inhibit the full inquiry of her role in strengthening the wall, which is the central issue before the Commission.

edited to fix tags, I think -- T.S.