Friday, June 16, 2006

More U.S. generals "surrender" - Specter's schizophrenia - book tour update

(1) Ever since Americans turned against the war in Iraq, proponents of the invasion have been desperate to find others on whom they could heap blame. Increasingly, they have been attacking American military leaders (i.e., those who actually have waged the war, rather than cheered it on from afar) as being insufficiently brave and resolute. Today, one of those fearless warriors, National Review's Michael Ledeen, shares with us a letter he wrote to General Michael Hagee, the Commandant of Marine Corps, in which Ledeen excoriates Gen. Hagee for taking action against the Marines responsible for the Haidatha massacre and for condemning the murder-celebrating Marine music video:

I'm dismayed by your recent behavior. . . .

It seems to me an outrage for you to brief the likes of Congressman Murtha before the investigation was complete, and even then you should have told him to wait, to let justice take its course.

It seems to me an outrage for you to reinforce the utterly false notion that your Marines are out of control by zooming off to Iraq to deliver sermons on proper ethics. . . .

This sort of preemptive surrender inevitably has a bad effect on the morale of the Corps, and does nothing to deter future political attacks. You have gained nothing except the contempt of the Corps' enemies, who know that if they can destroy the unique image of U.S. Marines, they will have taken a giant step toward defeating us in the current war.

So, Michael Ledeen, sitting in his office, accuses Gen. Hagee of "surrender" and helping "the Corps' enemies," whose goal is to "defeat us in the current war." And he thinks it's particularly outrageous that Gen. Hagee would consult with "the likes of John Murtha," a coward and traitor if ever there was one. If Hagee wants to talk about Marine discipline issues, he should do it with military heroes like Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson and Ledeen, not "with the likes of" anti-military freaks like Murtha, who knows nothing about the Marines.

Ledeen obviously believes that Gen. Hagee needs an infusion of courage and a lecture on military values from the real warriors like Ledeen -- quite redolent of the time recently when Glenn Reynolds told us how no unique bravery is required to fight in combat; the true heroes are those who (like Reynolds, and Ledeen) exhibit "political courage."

It really is striking how so many war advocates insist that all sorts of military Generals and combat veterans are weak, spineless, and cowardly, and whose lack of fortitude aids our enemies. All of that is in contrast, of course, to the bravery and towering resolve of the war advocates, who alone are strong and brave enough to stand tall against our enemies, both foreign and domestic. Nobody has waged as vicious and limitless attacks on the character, integrity and bravery of American veterans and soldiers as the war proponents looking for people to blame for their own shortcomings and failures.

(2) Arlen Specter's schizophrenic relationship with the administration -- one minute he threatens them, the next he offers them full immunity for prior criminal behavior, and then threatens them again -- continues today:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter cranked up his dispute with the Bush administration over executive power on Thursday, threatening to subpoena documents on the White House's warrantless surveillance program.

Specter said he had not received a response to his request that Attorney General appear before the panel this month to answer questions about the surveillance program and other touchy subjects — such as the FBI raid on a lawmaker's office last month. "I will ask for authorization for a subpoena if we do not get an adequate response," Specter told the committee. . . .

The Pennsylvania Republican, who won the administration's goodwill by ushering two of its nominees onto the Supreme Court in the last year, has engaged in an increasingly tense standoff with the White House over matters he believes could amount to abuses of executive power.

We're all aware of Sen. Specter's shortcomings, lack of resolve, character flaws, inevitable inability to follow through on his rhetoric, etc. But as I have pointed out before, I would really like to know which Senator other than Feingold has done more to cause these issues to be kept in the spotlight and prevented these scandals from being quickly swept under the rug. As horrendous as I find Specter's behavior, it's difficult -- and, I think, inaccurate -- to depict him as the root of the problem unless one is able to point to other Senators who are doing what you think Specter should be doing. Other than Feingold, I don't know of any. While Specter does nothing more than make noise about the administration's abuses of presidential power, at least he does that. That stands in sharp, and I believe rather favorable, contrast to most other Senators, in both parties.

(3) The book events I have been attending for this entire book tour have been uniformly superb - well-attended and filled with people who are genuinely interested in the issues discussed on this blog and in my book, and highly knowledgeable about them. That makes for truly enlightening discussions about the administration's unique abuses of power and the ways in which Americans can invent ways to check those abuses, particularly in light of the profound dysfunction and failures of our institutions which are supposed to be doing that -- our Congress, courts and national media.

The next event, which I anticipate will be excellent, is this Saturday night in Manhattan, beginning at 8:00 p.m., at the Upper West Side YMCA (The George Washington Lounge -- 5 W. 63rd St. (between CPW & Broadway)). I am speaking as part of the Writer's Speakers Series, and a substantial part of the event will be the question-and-answer/discussion session after I speak. I hope as many blog readers who live in or near NYC can attend.

On Monday (June 19), I will be on the Al Franken Show at 1:30 p.m., and then in Philadelphia that night for a Drinking Liberally event (whose events for the book have been uniformly superb). It's from 6:00-8:00 p.m, at Higher Grounds Cafe -- 631 North 3rd St.Philadelphia, PA 19123.

(4) Peter Daou reports that Karl Rove hilariously complained about the "hate and anger" which liberal bloggers are devoted to spreading, and analyzes those attacks in the context of the media's truly reverent treatment of Ann Coulter, that grand literary genius and political analyst. As always, Peter's media analysis is astute and unique.

41 comments:

  1. Anonymous12:55 PM

    Glenn, you are too kind to Specter. You recognize the problem, but you aren't paying attention to yourself.

    Here's the shorter version from your post: "We're all aware of Sen. Specter's shortcomings, lack of resolve, character flaws, inevitable inability to follow through on his rhetoric, etc. … While Specter does nothing more than make noise about the administration's abuses of presidential power, at least he does that." Yes, he puts the issues "in the spotlight" but then he sees to it that they are "quickly swept under the rug."

    Is he better than other senators because he seizes the lead and then folds? It depends on which team you're on. Anyone interested in defending the Constitution and the legislative branch has to wonder who Specter's working for, because the only thing he delivers is bluster and capitulation. The kind observer might conclude that he's working for Specter. But he is derailing every attempt to rein in this administration.

    If he wants to stand up and act like a Senator, and remain standing longer than five minutes, I'll start cheering.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12:56 PM

    The gall. Ledeen needs to be unceremoniously nabbed, packed into a CIA jet. Carted off to Iraq. Dumped unceremoniously in the center of Ramadi or Falujah, and offered a hearty "good luck" as his ride takes off and gets the hell out of dodge.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Glenn, you are too kind to Specter.

    So - as I have asked multiple times when it's time to bash Specter again -- please give me the list of the Senators, other than Feingold, who are doing the things on issues of executive power that you think that Specter ought to be doing. Include on the list those Senators who have done more than Specter to ensure that these issues receive attention, rather than get swept under the rug and ignored entirely by the media.

    There is no question that in the absence of Specter - if, for instance, Orrin Hatch were Chair of the Judiciary Committee - the whole NSA scandal would have been resolved long ago, like it was in the Pat Roberts-led Intelligence Committee. So please tell me who all the Senators are -- all the Democrats -- who are doing the great work on executive power issues that Specter should use as a model for what he ought to be doing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:15 PM

    Can we just pre-empt the stab-in-the-back meme right now?

    It's our issue, and it's true. You can make a case that no matter how idiotic it was to go into Iraq in the first place, the job was at least potentially doable. But it hasn't been done, and it now can't be done, because, yes, our military was stabbed in the back. By the fools and cowards who wouldn't accept realistic plans for the immediate aftermath of the invasion, who wouldn't commit enough troops, who wouldn't and won't pay either the financial price or the political price to do the job. The guys who sold out to Halliburton, who'd rather break the Reserves and Guard than admit that anything was wrong, who won't supply adequate body armor for troops in the field, who won't supply adequate medical care or support for those returning from the field.

    The same fools and cowards who're howling now about how all our people should fight on with that knife sticking out of their backs, because they might have to feel bad if we admitted there was an issue and brought the troops home, and, you know, treated that knife wound. The same ones who're never serving themselves, who wouldn't be caught dead, who "had other priorities" when they were young, whose children have other priorities now. The same ones who wouldn't even pay higher taxes to buy the actual fighters the equipment they need, who just tell them to manage somehow and to stop bitching about the knife in the back.

    If I'm wrong about this one, can you tell me precisely how? And if I'm not wrong, why can't we go out and own this damn issue?

    (Can you tell I've had family fighting this war? It doesn't make you feel all warm and loving toward the Republican party line.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:24 PM

    Actually, the amateur civilian extremists who got us into this war have been showing utter contempt for military professionals from the very outset.

    It's for this reason the right has to manufacture a troop-hating left, e.g., Michelle Malkin's recent forgery.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1:25 PM

    "Change -- above all violent change -- is the essence of human history,"

    Funny, that's a fundamental communist assumption of history and society.

    Interesting.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1:34 PM

    From nuf said's link on Who Is Michael Ledeen: ""Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically ... it is time once again to export the democratic revolution.""

    Look, I like a good war movie/western/action picture as much as the next person. I like that Call of Duty series of video games. I played with toy guns as a kid. I've enjoyed firing real guns as part of my education in firearms from beloved family members who served in the military.

    Doesn't mean I feel the need to sit back and send someone ELSE to go fight, especially in a fight predicated on . . . not much.

    This Manifest Destiny shit is soooooo 1848-Mexican War-couture.

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  8. Glenn said,

    As horrendous as I find Specter's behavior, it's difficult -- and, I think, inaccurate -- to depict him as the root of the problem unless one is able to point to other Senators who are doing what you think Specter should be doing. Other than Feingold, I don't know of any. While Specter does nothing more than make noise about the administration's abuses of presidential power, at least he does that.

    Specter isn't making noise about this, he is desperately and repeatedly trying to pass legislation that would legalize the President's eavesdropping. In addition to retroactive amnesty, this new bill would:

    (tip o' the hat to arne langsetmo and wg)

    -- Completely remove the type of data mining reported by USA Today from the jurisdiction of the FISA.

    -- Mandates that all current and future challenges to any government eavesdropping are heard only by the FISC of review and the Supreme Court.

    -- Allows non specific warrants in which the persons and items to be searched are not named.

    -- Extends the "foreign power" or "agent of a foreign power" necessity for a FISA warrant to "a person reasonably believed to have communication with or be associated with a foreign power...or agent of a foreign power."

    -- Would repeal the following sections of FISA:
    __
    1829. Authorization during time of war
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize physical searches without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

    1811. Authorization during time of war
    Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

    1844. Authorization during time of war
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize the use of a pen register or trap and trace device without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress.
    __

    Specter is not the root of the problem he is just one of many branches, but he isn't here to help. That much is blatantly obvious. Look at what Specter does, not what he says he does.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous1:51 PM

    Take a look at this to see what kind of scum Michael Ledeen is:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous1:55 PM

    To all of the readers & posters to this blog: In spite of, or maybe, because of Michael Ladeen's portfolio, from "Iran-Contra", his card carrying membership in the American Enterprise Institute, his reported trip to Rome to meet with some Iranian-we'd better all be screaming at the top of our lungs that GEORGE BUSH IS GOING TO INVDE IRAN, SOON!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Michael Ledeen, born August 1, 1941, turned 25 years old the month that U.S. troop strength in Vietnam reached 429,000. Was Michael Ledeen among them? Not so much, no.

    But I'm sure four-star general Michael Hagee, commandant of the United States Marine Corps, appreciates his feedback anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Glenn said…
    "…please give me the list of the Senators, other than Feingold, who are doing the things on issues of executive power…"


    Unless Feingold is proposing bills to retroactively pardon the crimes of the Executive, I can't quite equate them the way you have.

    Should Arlen ever really go after the fox in the henhouse, then I'd have to change my opinion of him. Until then I will consider his mock outrage as little more than political theater.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous2:11 PM

    the major is my favorite character (or should that be caricature?) in the comments section for the week. ELL - OH - ELL, as the kids say these days (or write, rather).

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous2:18 PM

    Well... talk is cheap. Maybe y'all should email the NRO to express your contempt for that chicken hawk, and then, while your at it, email General Hagee to express your support for the way he is handling things. Leeden posted Hagee's email address.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous2:20 PM

    Glenn, we both know the answer to your demand: "So please tell me who all the Senators are -- all the Democrats -- who are doing the great work on executive power issues that Specter should use as a model for what he ought to be doing." We both like Feingold, who shouldn't be so lonely.

    But just because you're right about the Democrats' abysmal showing doesn't mean that you're not too kind to Specter. I don't know what his game is. I am perplexed because what appear to be voluntary actions end up reflecting so poorly on him. But in the unlikely event that some inexplicably shy or slow Senator were waiting in the wings (and what sort of an effective voice would do that?) with a better approach, Specter's showboating preempts it.

    I am not criticizing you, Glenn. It is a good thing to be kind. I'm just finding it hard to stomach another episode of Groundhog Day with Mr. Specter.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous2:28 PM

    From the major at 1:45PM:

    "Can't anybody here understand that if the generals did their jobs we'd be wining in iraq right now."

    Odd, I thought they were.

    Or are you saying genocide is perfectly acceptable now? Let me guess, you were both Arthur Liebehenschel and Richard Baer in a previous life. [Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auswitz for the significance]

    Honestly. You need help, friend.

    ReplyDelete
  17. From the major's blog:

    They always blame america for everyhting bad that happens even thouhg america is the best.
    But they cant handle debating with me sot hey juust call me names. Tyipacal liberals. Loosers.


    I can't beleive this isn't a parody!

    ReplyDelete
  18. While we're remembering Michael Ledeen, let's not forget his alleged role in the Niger forgery.

    There's also this interesting interview with him at RawStory, where he says:

    So I'm not surprised when our leaders make mistakes, I'm surprised and delighted when they do great things. I think we should support free societies but I'm not surprised when an American president makes a deal with a dictator. And sometimes there isn't any better choice, by the way. I hate Stalin, but I think the wartime alliance against Hitler was the right thing to do, disgusting though it was.
    However, I think that we should have been more vigorous against Stalin and his successors once the war was over, and in retrospect I think the Soviet Empire could have ended earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous2:38 PM

    From PhD9 at 2:33PM:

    "I can't beleive this isn't a parody!"

    Even if it is, he needs to learn to spell...unless that's parody too.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous2:59 PM

    As horrendous as I find Specter's behavior, it's difficult -- and, I think, inaccurate -- to depict him as the root of the problem unless one is able to point to other Senators who are doing what you think Specter should be doing.

    Feingold.

    Other than Feingold, I don't know of any.

    But...Feingold is one you can point to, correct? Why are we skipping over him?

    While Specter does nothing more than make noise about the administration's abuses of presidential power, at least he does that. That stands in sharp, and I believe rather favorable, contrast to most other Senators, in both parties.

    Illusion that makes us think something is being done is, in fact, more dangerous than a stark reality that nothing is being done. With the latter, there is the potential for action. With the former, there is only an opiate that precludes action.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous3:09 PM

    I agree with anonymous -- just because you can't name a Democrat who isn't doing as much or more than Arlen, doesn't mean you aren't being too kind to the latter.

    Arlen knows the danger presented by this administration. He knows who the bad guys are and where they sit. He is in one of the few positions in Congress that has a prayer of doing anything about it.

    He could tell the truth about just how dangerous they are. He could quit trying to get them out of the constitutional jam they've gotten themselves into. But no. He keeps looking for a way to save their asses while making himself look tough.

    He is a fool trying to persuade everyone else that he is nobody's fool.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous3:29 PM

    From yankeependragon: ""I can't beleive this isn't a parody!"

    Even if it is, he needs to learn to spell...unless that's parody too.
    "

    I think it's part of the whole schtick.

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous5:15 PM

    the cynic librarian said...
    While we're remembering Michael Ledeen, let's not forget his alleged role in the Niger forgery

    That bit of information above, coupled with the information in my earlier post(Iran/Contra/Meeting with a high level Iranian in Italy)is the reason why I said we'd better start screaming at the top of our lungs that GEORGE BUSH IS GOING TO INVADE IRAN!!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. If the Major is a parody of some kind, it's kind of a sad one, because he's apparently been at it since April on his blog.

    Even as a parody, it's just kind of sad rather than funny, and it doesn't really work as Satire because it's far too subtle a satirization of how wingnuts sound.

    He writes like a semi-literate and in his posts goes on about how he doesn't know how to post links, so he just opts to repetitively post links to some right wing extremists.

    I don't know - he's either a strange joke or a high functioning retard.

    Perhaps a little from column A and a little from column B.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous5:19 PM

    "it's difficult -- and, I think, inaccurate -- to depict him as the root of the problem unless one is able to point to other Senators who are doing what you think Specter should be doing."

    Of course he isn't the root of the problem. But he is indisputably a chief enabler.

    While he has done the second most of any senator to keep the issues in the news, he has done even more to ensure that no reasonable outcome can occur despite the meager coverage it has received. My feeling is that the GOP realizes that contravention of the Constitution isn't a cake-walk. They can't actually pretend it hasn't happened - too many people (like Glenn) notice. So he is putting up a charade designed to culminate in the Supreme Court. That way, SCOTUS, the suposedly (previously?) independent branch can incontravertibly certify the new way. Of course we know that about half of the nine are "on point" with the GOP leadership.

    What are we going to do then? Will you still feel like Specter's keeping the issue in the news was a genuine expression of dissent when he passes the buck to the buddies he installed a year or so ago?

    Don't fall into the "Vincini Trap" - he might look like he's risking poison by Iocaine Powder, but actually he's spent the last few years building up an immunity to it. Don't drink the wine, Glenn.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous6:08 PM

    In regards to Specter and his pronouncements from on high, I think this is all a show for the voting moderates. I believe the Republicans are afraid of a lot of moderates (who would otherwise vote Republican) voting for a Democrat in November just to keep a leash on this administration. So Specter goes out and says he'll hold hearings on the signing statements in June, but so far none has been scheduled. Specter also says he wants to look into the warrantless wiretapping by the NSA, but then wants to give the administration a free walk. For the ill-informed, Specter would seem like the the Guardian of Liberty, no rubber stamp on him! Why, nobody would need to vote for a Democrat at all, because we have Arlen Specter looking out for our liberties! Just more manipulation from the Right.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Don't drink the wine, Glenn.

    The most negative and cynical position isn't always the most astute or sophisticated one. Sometimes the opposite is true. The way to get things done politically - the only way - is to work with people who have huge character flaws, who are dishonest, etc. when doing so can advance your goal. Running around screaming about what a worthless liar Arlen Specter is - and not recognizing the potential to exploit value from some of his behavior - achieves nothing other than making the screamer feel satisfied and pure.

    Let's pretend Arlen Specter didn't exist. Instead, the Judiciary Committee Chairman is Orrin Hatch or Pat Roberts or John Kyl or John Cornyn, and legislation to resolve the NSA scandal once and for all was shoved through Committee back in March, without ever even calling Gonzales to testify, let alone all the other hearings, threats, debates, etc. over executive power that have spawned newspaper articles and public debates.

    Please tell me how things would be better. And how could it possibly be better to have a quick and easy resolution of these issues (which is what we would had have if Specter weren't there) as opposed to a prolonged and contentious over these issues, even if they end up being resolved (which is what we have had with Specter and due to him).

    ReplyDelete
  28. I really think we're past the time where some soldier calls Ledeen out.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous9:34 PM

    "Please tell me how things would be better. And how could it possibly be better to have a quick and easy resolution..."

    That's interesting, I didn't even consider my position cynical. And I'm not trying to stroke myself or feel more "pure". I'm pretty sure I'm working toward the same end as you so there's no need for any of that.

    I don't mean to attack you, I just understand the argument differently; I think the burden is on you to show how things are different (better) because of Specter's involvement. I didn't advocate disengagement from Specter, only to be aware of his consistent role as a reliable enabler. My concern is that there might not be a big difference between Specter and Kyl. To answer your question, it wouldn't be better to have a quick and easy resolution. On the contrary, I was suggesting that a quick and easy resolution is unlikely considering the gravity of the problem. A Kyl-esque approach wouldn't necessarily be quick and easy at all in the end. Does congress by itself have the authority to end this (including retroactive amnesty for past lawbreaking, even possible Consitutional violations)? To pose it back to you, how is a protracted, difficult resolution implicitly superior, considering no one knows how it will turn out in the end? I still think we can prevail!

    My perception though is that Specter has not actually risked anything significant yet. I hope he does. But is it really just cynicism to think that he likely won't suddenly change a long-held pattern of behavior? I don't claim to be a political insider and know how to "get things done politically". I just know how i reach consensus in my own life.

    ReplyDelete
  30. That's interesting, I didn't even consider my position cynical. And I'm not trying to stroke myself or feel more "pure". I'm pretty sure I'm working toward the same end as you so there's no need for any of that.

    Those comments were directed at you personally or specifically. I'm describing a sentiment commonly expressed here - that Specter is some sort of pure evil and that no good can even be exploited or created from anything he does. I should have made clearer that I wasn't characterizing your comments per se.

    I think the burden is on you to show how things are different (better) because of Specter's involvement.

    In my view, the single most important priority with regard to presidential abuse of power is to generate as much public discussion of these issues. Secondarily, it's critical to prevent Congressional resolution of this scandal with no consequences for the administration.

    In that regard, I would estimate that roughly 50% of all articles on these issues in the national media over the past several months have been the direct result of Specter's refusal (thus far) to sign onto some swept-under-the-rug resolution, as well as his sometimes aggressive rhetoric against the administration's violations of FISA. Although I have little doubt that Specter will, in the end, capitulate, the fact that the scandal has dragged on this long and has received whatever attention it has received in the national media is largely due to Specter's pretenses of independence. Had the Judiciary Committee been chaired by virtually any other Republican, it is highly likely that there would have been a DeWine-type legislative resolution long ago with no real discussion of any kind. A prolonged scandal and much greater media discssion are tangible and important benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  31. As horrendous as I find Specter's behavior, it's difficult -- and, I think, inaccurate -- to depict him as the root of the problem unless one is able to point to other Senators who are doing what you think Specter should be doing. Other than Feingold, I don't know of any.
    Hillary Rodham Clinton addressed the opening of the American Constitution Society today with a speech outlining her proposal for new privacy legislation. They have posted streaming video:

    Clinton Addresses ACS Convention

    Much of the speech is highly critical of the Bush administrations illegal warrantless wiretapping program. If she were to give the same speech from the floor of the Senate, I think you would have found at least one senator who is doing what Specter (and all 99 other senators IMO) should be doing. I should mention that before viewing this I was not a fan of Hillary, but this speech has changed my view considerably.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous1:49 PM

    I thought the comment by Nezua earlier was spot on!!

    Illusion that makes us think something is being done is, in fact, more dangerous than a stark reality that nothing is being done. With the latter, there is the potential for action. With the former, there is only an opiate that precludes action.

    I find Specter's actions pretty characteristic of the GOP's MO: use faux leadership to preemptively manipulate the handling of an issue, and lull people into complacency that there is a bipartisan awareness and handling of said issue...and thereby minimize debate, enabling the corrupt Bush Administration to continue to dismantle the Constitution.

    On the matter of strength of spine...I hope the US Congress collectively grows one, and stands up to the Neocon overthrow of our government. Take one for the team, and say you will not be blackmailed or threatened into complicity with this evil cabal!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous9:13 PM

    Those comments were directed at you personally or specifically.

    I'm hoping you mean that they are NOT directed at me personally, because I'm a big fan of yours Glenn. =)

    In my view, the single most important priority with regard to presidential abuse of power is to generate as much public discussion of these issues.

    This is definitely the crux of where we differ. My top priority is to stop the abuse. I think you see a strong correlation between the amount of media coverage and the administration's behavior being threatened. I don't see it like that. I think more than quantitative gains, a change in the tone of the coverage can make all the difference. Right now, essentially all the mainstream coverage of the NSA scandal - beit Specter induced or not - has taken the credulous stance in reporting, not the skeptical stance. If anything, it consolidates support by keeping it in the news if the coverage is complimentary. I'm confident you and I can easily name 10 terrible policies that hurt average americans that recieved a lot of coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous1:39 AM

    PhD9 said...

    From the major's blog:

    "They always blame america for everyhting bad that happens even thouhg america is the best.
    But they cant handle debating with me sot hey juust call me names. Tyipacal liberals. Loosers.

    I can't beleive this isn't a parody!"

    Actually I believe the Major is George Bush. Just look at the smooth literary content and suave delivery and you can tell right away who it is. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous3:06 AM

    DavidByron said...

    "This sort of patriotic mind-fuck is always making the so-called liberals self-defeating. It's pathetically easy to make so-called liberals support a war by accusing them of not sticking their tongue sufficiently far up the ass of people who literally made a career choice to kill other people for money.

    "character, integrity and bravery"?

    How brave do you have to be to push a button and mow down more defenceless civilians? How much integrity does it take to torture innocents and even bugger little boys? Or perhaps it's just the "character" behind day in and day out treatment of Iraqis as scum who should be killed like cockroaches?"


    Says David Byron sitting safely behind his keyboard at the headquarters of the 101st keyboard commandos. David Byron who goes out every day knowing that he will not have any limbs blown off by an IED, nor will he lose his life to same. David Byron who lives a life free of the stress of combat but feels pefectly competent to pass judgement on those that due.

    David Byron who lives in England where everyone who is a murderer is a murderer by choice, a country where innocents have been tortured and where the English even bugger little boys.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous3:44 AM

    The way to get things done politically - the only way - is to work with people who have huge character flaws, who are dishonest, etc. when doing so can advance your goal. Running around screaming about what a worthless liar Arlen Specter is - and not recognizing the potential to exploit value from some of his behavior - achieves nothing other than making the screamer feel satisfied and pure.

    It's a dilemma, granted, and one addressed by Machievelli, Faust, and millions of other thinkers and intellects throughout history.

    I prefer Ayn Rand's approach who said, in essence, never sit down at a bargaining table with the Mafia.

    Of course, not only was she a moral absolutist, but she wasn't in politics.

    And neither are the vast majority of American citizens, I might point out, who may legitimately find it repugnant to even focus for a minute on whatever crumbs of possible good (usually those are slim to none anyway) come out of any action taken by a person who consistently betrays his stated values and never stands up, in the end, for what is right.

    Glenn's position might be more persuasive if actual changes to any of these draconian policies of government violations of the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment might come out of Specter's actions.

    They won't.

    So who cares about all the discussion? Action is the perfection of thought. If no actions are taken as a result of Specter's machinations, then thought and discussion are just diversions. Entertaining, perhaps, but leading to naught.

    In the meantime some shred of credibility is given to a morally repugnant person and that is a bad thing.

    Good people simply do not go into politics. I think all the purists on this blog are beginning to see that.

    Most people probably saw that a long time ago which explains their not unreasonable apathy to politics in general.

    What's the answer? Who said there was one?

    For me at least it could never be to "work with people who are dishonest to achieve my goal."

    I'd find another way, such as finding honest people to work with to achieve my goals.

    Also, I doubt working with anyone dishonest would even go very far in achieving any goal of mine, as I never have dishonest goals so dishonest people would hardly make good partners.

    I intend to continue to shun them completely and maintain my own integrity. That's my main goal anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous4:12 AM

    A post on war.

    First let me start by saying that if the Marines at Haditha did engage in wanton killing of innocent civilians then they deserve whatever punishment they get.

    But let's talk about what really may have happened and why I feel judgement should be witheld until all of the facts are in.

    First: If as they claim, the Marines were receiving fire from the house or houses that they subsequently stormed then their actions were indeed within the rules of engagement. War is a really nasty dirty business as I have said repeatedly and it should not be engaged in unless it is truly the last resort. Unfortunately the people in charge of this country never served and never learned this lesson. It is the lesson that should have been learned from Viet Nam. That being said; when you go in to clear a house you have received fire from you don't go in and politely knock on doors asking if anyone has a gun and if they have been shooting at you. You go in to clear the house. You go in throwing grenades into rooms before entering them and spraying whatever moves afterward with gunfire. General Patton said it best: The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.

    Now let's talk about why in unconventional warfare what the Marines said is completely plausible. That someone had been firing at them and that they believe that person or persons had run out the open back door they found when they cleared the first house.

    In Viet Nam civilians were often used as both shields and as pawns in an effort to discredit the American military by claiming that atrocities were being committed by U.S. troops. At one compound where I served there was a villiage about 100ft outside the compound fence. The VC one night positioned themselves between the compound and the villiage. They subsequently started a firefight. The troops on guard returned fire and in the fight some civilians in the villiage were wounded and killed. The VC withdrew and took their dead with them leaving no evidence that they had been there. The accusation of course afterwards was that American troops had wantonly fired on civilians in the villiage without provocation.

    Another tactic used by the VC was to send a small child wired with explosives out to beg for candy from a squad of troops entering their villiage. When the child was amongst the troops the explosives were remotely detonated by someone nearby subsequently blowing up the child and injuring and killing several soldiers in the squad.

    Tactics like that were commonly used in Viet Nam and I believe that tactics simular to, if not the same, are likely being used in Iraq.

    For that reason I believe that everyone should wait for the facts before reaching any arbitrary judgement about what happened at Haditha.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous9:42 AM

    From Gris Lobo at 4:12AM:

    "But let's talk about what really may have happened and why I feel judgement should be witheld until all of the facts are in."

    You raise good points. This is why I'd suggested there be a moratorium on the issue until the investigation is completed and the official judgment rendered.

    I'm not suggesting an outright banning, but tempers run hot on the issue presently and serious, objective discussion doesn't prove possible.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous2:51 PM

    I guess Ledeen's just anxious for the "future soldiers" that was outlined in the PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses:

    "Future soldiers may operate in encapsulated, climate-controlled, powered fighting suits, laced with sensors, and boasting chameleon-like 'active' camouflage. 'Skin-patch' pharmaceuticals help regulate fears, focus concentration and enhance endurance and strength."(p. 62 pdf version)

    Obviously Ledeen thinks General Hagee and the rest of the troops need to have their meds increased so they can be true, brave New American Century warriors.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous11:50 PM

    yankeependragon said...

    From Gris Lobo at 4:12AM:

    "But let's talk about what really may have happened and why I feel judgement should be witheld until all of the facts are in."

    You raise good points. This is why I'd suggested there be a moratorium on the issue until the investigation is completed and the official judgment rendered.

    I'm not suggesting an outright banning, but tempers run hot on the issue presently and serious, objective discussion doesn't prove possible.

    I agree with you which is why I have said that everyone should wait until all of the facts are in. I did feel it necessary to post on it though because of David Byron's post upthread.

    Those of us that served in Viet Nam were unable to defend ourselves from attacks like that, and many of us suffered for the last 35 years because of the anti-war types that turned the war protest from being a protest against the war, to a protest against those that served. This time I am here and those that try to do that will not go unchallenged again. That is not to excuse wanton killing, I don't excuse that. But blaming all for what a few do is wrong also.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous11:17 PM

    Of all the hypocritical bunkum! Here we have an 'elected' (or judicially selected? or elected in a rigged election?) President who operates without reference to legal constraints and people wanting to suppress stories until 'all facts are known' so their trials are not prejudiced. All facts are known about Haditha, and they are as glorious as My Lai. The fact that these stories and others, including Hamandiyah, use of phosphorous in Falluja, kidnap and rendition of people for torture without trial, explicit photographs of sexual sadism of captors towards prisoners, etc surface in overseas media is no credit to US. You argue how wars are nasty business but tell me what were the Nuremburg trials about?

    ReplyDelete