Talk About Bullshit
By Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on October 27, 2007 at 12:51 PM in Current Affairs
At this juncture in the presidential race I would say I am a Clinton supporter. Nonetheless, you have to feel some empathy for John Edwards in the wake of today’s non-story in the New York Times. According to the Times:
A journalism professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is accusing aides of John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, of demanding that he remove from YouTube a student report critical of Mr. Edwards’s Democratic presidential campaign — and of threatening to block the university’s access to Mr. Edwards and the campaign headquarters near campus.
For starters–who gives a rat’s ass? I am not sure which is less newsworthy. The student report that Edward’s headquarters is in an affluent neighborhood or the reaction of the staff at the Edwards headquarters. Just because Edwards speaks out against poverty does not mean he must take a vow of poverty and live in a goddamn shack. If this is what passes for journalism education at the University of North Carolina then we can rest assured that Fox News will have an ample supply of mindless hacks to fill its newsroom in the future.
But it also is pathetic that Edward’s communications director wasted time calling the University and complaining about the student piece. Because someone who works for John Edwards is perceived as bullying a student we are now supposed to believe this somehow reflects on his competence to be President? Can you believe that we are even talking about stupid shit like this? I wonder why someone as classy as Edwards will subject himself to this kind of mindless nonsense.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
Amen Larry, FDR comes to mind. Although I still have a problem that Hugh Shelton was utilized by Edwards to smear Wes Clark in ‘04. That’s just me. Then again “All’s fair in …”
mr johnson- are you hoping for war with iran? or just higher taxes?
Paul, not Clinton
mr johnson- are you hoping for war with iran? or just higher taxes?
Paul, not Clinton
St. Paul..right?
The Hoopster would be very disappointed if anyone thinks ron paul brings anything to the table..
Right on Larry!
Larry,
did you see the latest ‘bullshit’ stunt by conyers and crew?
the id’s of up to 150 doj whistleblowers have now been compromised by conyers and crew.
given the way that conyers tossed out ray mcgovern and others, i really wonder if the conyers latest screw up was a really a mistake or was it intentional.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004576.php
D’Oh: House Panel Screw-Up Reveals Whistleblower Email
Conyers screws up. Well, someone on his staff, anyway. A plant? How DID Cheney get on the mailing list?
Hillary under attack again. Doesn’t much matter what for. The bad guys are just warming up.
Edwards under attack, still. Some some stupid shit his staff did.
Obama making a gay/black issue fool of himself. For something his staff did.
I smell a rat.
What IS in Cheney’s man-sized safe, anwyay? (TM pending)
Do you Dodd-it? (TM pending) Yet? What more do you need?
It’s all part and parcel of a campaign to trivialize the Democratic presidential candidates, using nonsense stories such as Edwards’ haircut, Obama’s flag pin, etc.
It’s maddening when the media pay so much attention to this BS. As if there weren’t a war going on and more important issues to discuss.
Maddening is right on. It would be less so if the names of the idiots that are behind these stories would be placed out in front every time they deal in this type of bs. The professor might be a bit more careful next time if he knew that his sorry butt was going to be held up for accountability.
Well THAT is a shock, folk wondering about inconsequtential stuff while a country is at war, must be voting season again, OH MY GOD Edwards got a haircut……..he must be the anti christ, and Hillary has boobs…..OMG and Obama has no lapel flag………fING rediculous what passes for conversation these days…….the
Look over there……….nothing to see here…
this is not the droid we are looking for crowd (read right wingers w/ no understanding of US history or world history) trying to distract us from ISSUES like
trillions lost in Iraq
monies borrowed for the war from CHINA
obscene corporate profits
decline in wages for working families
NO Farking health care for folk …..
Yes let us continue to worry about
haircuts and where one has his offices
sigh OH FOR 010-20-09
Comment by tomdem55
i really like where you are going there…we get sidetracked from real issues..
But still..you have got to admit..the 400 dollar haircut..that was pretty funny…
( it’s always the haircut isn’t it?)
Hoopster,
Regarding your spam filter question, I checked last night and tonight and you’re not there.
Try reposting your bad French with subtitles again, OK?
I love bad French.
>>> ( it’s always the haircut isn’t it?)
However, try being a Democrat who NEEDS a haircut, and the Slime-O-Matic will come up with a Photoshopped’d pic of you getting a big hug from Stalin…
>>> I love bad French
D’accord!
Click here: Presidential Election of 2008 - Lawyers -Hillary Rodham Clinton -John Edwards - Rudolph W. Giuliani - Barack Obama
This is the most substantive description of the abilities of those Presidential Candidates who were lawyers. It is good to note the kinds of things they fought for and whether it was for political reasons or for a core principal. That is for each of you to add to the bodies of facts that we know about each candidate and weight it in favor of one or another. These are both Republican and Democratic candidates. I realize that the only reason this one seems at all good is that we seldom get real facts in an article. Instead we get the crap they put out to denigrate the Democrats in such a way to be able to make American’s who barely pay attention that they are bad people for all the wrong reasons.
I also think that we should all note that we seem to be moving into a Cold War Stance with Russia. Hopefully it won’t go that far but Putin is with Iran and we continue to taunt Iran against the advice of many serious people. We are becoming less safe in the world and more isolated. It hardly matters anymore how we got there but that we are there and it was a strategic blunder. Also the speculation in the oil markets due to the instability in the Middle East could drive the price of oil which benefits Russia and Iran and so we are basically feeding our enemies.
We have got to come to our senses in this country about what we really need in our next President. Anyone who knows history should realize that all Countries destroy themselves when the greed of the few overcomes the ability for the masses to pay the taxes. Empires seem to fall under the weight of their military expenditures and the rest of the world can be united against you in their own self interest. I think right now the world understands that America is not with George Bush, however if we don’t show a willingness to stop these people then I think it will become our problem with the world and we will surely be far less safe. We are no longer trusted in the world as honest brokers after we have been seen to not negotiate without putting our finger on the scale. The Valerie Plame story is a great example of that. This seems more like a resource grab by the Corporations so let me ask the question, Why are we paying for wars with our Soldiers and Treasure for the big corporations to get rich on, when they buy fake mail boxes in the Caymans to avoid paying taxes? I may be stupid but that seems like we the people are getting screwed royally?
You know I think maybe on the haircut that Edwards argument if the MSM would have covered it which I doubt, should have been well just because I am rich doesn’t mean I don’t value the labor of others. I ask my hairdresser to accomodate my schedule so I pay her what her time was worth. We have got to quit letting them control the debate.
corrected version
Maybe the mainstream media will offer up some tabloid style reporting on Mrs. Freddie Thompson.
I mean they have gone to the well for Edwards hair, Obama’s name and Hillary’s hoo-haw(Thanks for the visual Clifford May).
How about a Mrs. Freddie Thompson nip-slip?
http://www.tmz.com/2007/10/28/celebrity-nip-slips/
-GSD
hoopster- the government isn’t the solution, the government is the problem. if you want no war with iran and lower taxes vote for ron paul not hillary rodham clinton. if you want our budget, which is at 3 trillion a year now, to go even higher and the number of foreign entanglements to raise instead of lessen, support any of the other candidates.
The government is not the problem. The CURRENT Administration is the problem. Don’t confuse the Bush administration with our government, and don’t deliberately try to confuse others by conflating this current administration with the government - which libertarians/objectivists/Ayn Rand freaks try to get away with, all the time, but never succeed.
As for Hillary, her husband was the only President in recent history to balance the National Budget, so don’t bull shit about history, man. The economy has always been better under democrats, it’s just a simple fact. Anyone here can look it up. Some of us remember. Look, I’m not a Hillary promoter or even supporter, but you can bet good money that the deficit will go down, the poverty rolls will go down, the trade deficit will go down, unemployment will go down, education will improve, wages for the middle class will go up, taxes will be levied only on the super rich (who take full advantage of the government when it comes to enforcing contract laws anyway) the list of improvements to our economy under any democratic president could go on and on.
Ron Paul is a broken clock who’s right twice a day. All libertarians are.
A Libertarian is a Republican who owns a bong.
As for Hillary, her husband was the only President in recent history to balance the National Budget, so don’t bull shit about history, man. The economy has always been better under democrats, it’s just a simple fact. Anyone here can look it up. Some of us remember. Look, I’m not a Hillary promoter or even supporter, but you can bet good money that the deficit will go down, the poverty rolls will go down, the trade deficit will go down, unemployment will go down, education will improve, wages for the middle class will go up, taxes will be levied only on the super rich (who take full advantage of the government when it comes to enforcing contract laws anyway) the list of improvements to our economy under any democratic president could go on and on.
Couldn’t have said it better Mudkitty..
mudkitty- democrats are the broken clocks who are only right on one thing: the war. and the minute they got in to position to do anything about it they blew it. most of the democratic frotrunners can’t even pledge to bring the troops home by 2013. yeah the economy was awesome under jimmy carter. what planet are you from? Clinton said “the era of big government is over”. he was to reagan as bloomberg was to guliani. 80-2000 were great years because of what reagan started and clinton continued minus clintons interventionism and bombing of everything from sudan to kosovo.
“the super rich (who take full advantage of the government when it comes to enforcing contract laws anyway)”
who’s point are you trying to make? the evil corporations LOVE big government. they collude with them.
the best way for poverty to go down and trade deficits to do this and blah blah blah is for us to NOT spend 3 trillion dollars a year on a federal government we don’t need. democratic or republican presidents don’t make our economy. WE do. we lower deficits, WE do all the things you attribute to the government. it’s our money!!
Actually, the “one thing” the dems were wrong about was the authorization to use force - in other words the one thing the dems were wrong about was the war - you have it exactly ass backwards.
As for the smaller government bullshit…it’s just that. It isn’t a matter of smaller government, it’s a matter of the right sized government. It takes a lot of money to run this country. Or haven’t you figured that out yet?
Tell me, just how recently did you discover Ayn Rand? Cuz if you think that governments don’t “make economies” to use your inexact term, you are naive as all get out.
But the point, which you ignored, is that you can’t equate the Bush Administration with the U.S government. Two different things. And remember, Bush ran on the concept of “small government” and look what happened. Any time any pol talks about small government, prepare for war, and watch your wallets.
The 20th Century:
Republicans = bad economies
Democrats = good economies…after cleaning up Republican messes. Just go look it up.
Oh, yeah; it was the Gore Task Force that actually shrank the size of the Federal Government for the first time in nearly a century. Look it up. Don’t take my word for it. Of course, under repugs, the federal government ALWAYS expands, but it’s libertarian anti-tax freaks who ALWAYS end up voting republican, against their own interests (just like the evangelicals) because they buy into the lip service about smaller government. What a crock. Government needs to expand, and contract, in order to meet the needs of the people. It’s not an either/or, black and white. Either/ors are anti-intellectual.
“…clintons interventionism and bombing of everything from sudan to kosovo.”
From Sudan to Kosovo? Clinton did more to harm Iraq than every other place put together. He bombed Iraq 1-3 times a week regularly, engaged in one major bombing campaign that killed, among others, one of Iraq’s foremost artists, and destroyed some of her works, and for eight long years he starved the people of Iraq of adequate nutrition, medical equipment and supplies, drugs, education, clean water, and on and on and on. In a very real way Clinton set Iraq up for what George Bush II brought to it in 2003 and beyond.
For that alone, Bill Clinton is a war criminal.
Shirin writes: Clinton did more to harm Iraq than every other place put together.
With the possible exception of Iraq itself, by which I mean Saddam Hussein.
I’m way fed up with the constant lies concerning Clinton in this regard, Shirin. As I’ve pointed out before, you’ve carelessly conflated the bombing of civilian infrastructure by the Bush admins fore and aft with the military sorties engaged in by Clinton.
Look, I know it’s tough to accept that an Iraqi would fuck over his own country as badly as Saddam Hussein did.
We have much the same dilemma here–
Accept it. We do. And for God’s sake, stop lying.
By way of reminder, here’s a repost of my response to your previous list of the same complaints. I’ll copy ‘n’ paste this as many times as needed, Shirin, and don’t think i won’t; I ain’t proud.
———————————————
Shirin writes: unless you can demonstrate that Bill Clinton did not:
…help in Iraq’s destruction by presiding over eight years of genocidal (not my word, but the word used by two U.N. Iraq Humanitarian Coordinators and WHO’s Iraq director) sanctions and import blockades…
Poppywash. Presiding over that destruction was, unsurprisingly enough, the President of Iraq, a fella named Saddam Hussein, and Bill Clinton did not institute that destruction, nor institute the sanctions, nor create the situation precipating the institution of the sanctions, which again, should rightfully be placed upon Saddam Hussein. You wanna complain about the institution of the sanctions, take it up with Boutros Boutros Ghali (gee!) of the UN. These are the cards Bill Clinton was dealt when he arrived in office.
More later on the blockades and the inflammatory use of the g-word.
Shirin again: … that all but destroyed what little George H.W. Bush’s bombs left of the electrical, water, sewage and communication infrastructure,
Baldercock. One of the chief complaints, from the humanitarian point of view, against the indiscriminate bombing of George H. W. Bush’s Gulf War in 1991 was that civilian infrastructure in Iraq was intentionally targeted. They went after dams and water treatment facilities, for Christ’s sake. This led, predictably, to unsafe water– when it could be found at all– and attendant outbreaks of the usual water-borne diseases, all of which took a devastating toll on the civilan population. This practice was renewed in the Iraq invasion of 2003 under George W. Bush.
So what’s missing here? Right, the intervening years of the Clinton Presidency. Clinton directed no bombing of civilian infrastructure, period.
Shirin again: cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children under five years, caused massive malnutrition and epidemics of preventable, treatable diseases,
Hogdash. Medicine and food were not embargoed under Clinton. Further, missing from the calculations of those sizing up the effects of the destruction were the after-effects of the use of biological weapons by Saddam Hussein upon the Kurds in ‘88 (which was incidentally, the primary site of the testing in the mid-nineties which produced the horrific extrapolations you describe) and the predictable attendant long-term illnesses and mangled births. Why they no take that into account? Why no you? Coming to that.
Shirin again: destroyed what was a very fine education system, robbed millions of Iraqi children of their education, destroyed a medical system that was considered the finest in the region and one of the finest anywhere, cost Iraq its once huge, vibrant, and highly educated middle class,
Clinton did that? Oh, stop it. Look, as I pointed out before, the institution of the sanctions predated Clinton, and were not his idea. Having inherited them, however, and aware of the fact that they represented inducement to get Saddam to comply with inspections– essentially the only lever, save bombing, he had to work with– he did everything he could to see those inspections through to the end, with a goal of certifying a WMD-free Iraq and lifting the sanctions. In this, ironically, he fought Saddam Hussein himself and his truculence and sheer bloody-mindedness regarding the inspections he’d agreed to as condition of the cease-fire. Man of the people, that Saddam.
And moreover, if your understanding of mid-nineties American politics is as good as your understanding of middle eastern politics– which I’m in awe of, incidentally, and like most here I think I’ve gleaned more and better insight from than any other source– you’ll recall that on top of that, he fought the hostility of his own congress, the republican “Gingrich revolution” who were conditioned to shout “wrong!” at any Clinton proposal and would have preferred simply bombing Iraq into the stone age (as long as it wasn’t Clinton suggesting it), a Defense Department repulsed by a President who distrusted the military and military solutions, and who came of age during and opposed to the Vietnam debacle, and the media, which had by this point been successfully bullied by the same republican opposition into writing the news to their liking.
Shirin again: and unless you can show that Bill Clinton did not drop bombs on Iraq on average once or twice a week…
The misleading math of division of sorties by days I’ll leave to you without further comment. What’s relevant is that what bombings were actually directed by Clinton, again, were part of an effort to make Saddam comply with inspections, a strategy he used with success to halt the balkan conflict. To refresh your memory, Serbs were, as part of an, uh, expansion program, perpetrating a genocide upon muslims and others in Bosnia. Clinton, seeing that they had most of what they were after teritory-wise already and the rest was just paramilitary slaughter for sport, saw a chance to nudge them to the negotiating table with a series of bombings. Dayton accords followed.
As I say, Clinton used a similar series of bombings to nudge Saddam back into compliance with the inspections. As a result of this and further threats, inspections resumed– briefly, I’m sad to note. And again, Clinton did not bomb civilian infrastructure, or for that matter, residential neighborhoods, a particularly horrific trademark of Presidential admins before and after.
Shirin again: and made Iraq ripe for the kill…
That’s a wicked and disingenuous thing to say, implying conspiracy with the Bush admin that followed his, which chose to conduct a war of aggression after making sure that the country had been disarmed. Would you care to modify or amplify this statement, !@#$%^&*() ?
[In a subsequent post I wrote:] I wanted to address the use of the word “genocide.”
If, as you say, you wish a rational discussion, then let’s start with a rational definition of this word. I’d suggest that delivered by the UN in 1948:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Clinton’s actions don’t meet this definition, and the ICC has heard and rejected complaints againt him on this score. George W Bush’s do, most definitely.
Your use of the word “genocide” in description of the actions of Bill Clinton devalues the word. If the actions of Bill Clinton are genocide, then what do we call the actions of George W Bush, or Adolph Hitler, or Saddam Hussein? Double-Plus-Genocide?
And here’s the part you’ll hate most: where I wonder out loud why you have put all of this bad juju onto poor Bill Clinton. I suspect a good deal of regional pride is involved, and I believe that Saddam Hussein is conspicuously absent from your shitlist of bad actors in the destruction of Iraq because you do not want to believe that an Iraqi leader would blow off the welfare of his citizenry all because of a pissing contest with the west. So where to look for a villain? Ah! Found one!
I note that most if not all of your requests for demonstrative proof require proof of a negative (prove he or she didn’t do it) and I think that’s significant, and so should you. Further, to close the logic trap that I walked you into, each of your statements about Hillary ascribe the deepest and darkest motives to what she has said. Deep? Dark? Motives? Ring a bell?
Nevertheless, I think I’ve demonstrated that you have a jones, as it’s called, for the Clintons. It’s your monkey and your back, and God knows, there are plenty of sites on the net which will provide you with the fifty-pound bags of Purina Monkey Chow needed to sustain it, and that’s your choice.
So it’s like this:
If you don’t respect yourself enough to deal with the monkey on your back, that’s your problem.
If you don’t respect the truth or the language, that’s my problem.
[lightning briefly bathes the scene, a thunderclap is heard]
I’ll be watching.
—————————————–
And I am, in fact, watching.
Chris
Iraq I was connected to Iraq II by Clinton. Just because the media was ever so quiet about his despicable campaign against the Iraqi people in the name of some assault on Saddam Hussain, does not mean it did not happen.
Michael Parenti is one of many lefty humanitarian political commentators who have painstakingly recorded high deeds most foul. Clinton arguably was far worse than Bush in the material actions of the American campaign against the Iraqi people. Do an internet scrape & you will find plenty of oportunities to discover the truth.
As far as Shirin’s belief that Clinton prepared Iraq for a slam dunk. I would bet all my money on that.
Thinker writes: Clinton arguably was far worse than Bush in the material actions of the American campaign against the Iraqi people.
Then present that argument, for God’s sake. Don’t just tell me to “go look on the internet,” where I already know there is a plethora of unfounded speculation, half-truths and bad-faith arguments about the doings of evil Clinton– refute the arguments I’ve made above.
Start, lazy Thinker, with an explication of how extraodinary rendition under Clinton was far worse. Then explain how damage to civilian infrastructure (water supplies, sewage, electricity, etc.) under Clinton was far worse. Move on to how Clinton’s patient efforts to bring Saddam into compliance with inspection programs was worse than Bush’s rejection of them altogether in favor of invading.
And then for a strong stomach-turning, fact-fucking finish, you can claim that Bush is the better and more humane leader because, after all, he succeeded where Clinton failed in getting the sanctions lifted.
I think Mr Murdoch is not worried about that. He has jobs for them at the WSJ.
Hillary supporter? That sounds realistic. It’s true that she may address poverty, regaining control of the debt and deficit, but she would need 8 years to really do that, considering where we are now, plus we would need a President in 2016 (and hopefuly 2020 too) that would keep things balanced once we got it back that way.
The things I DON’T like about either of the Clintons happens to be in the arena where we are having our worst problems, however: foreign policy. Hillary may lean left domestically, but she leans right internationally. I think this is why the GOP smear machine has been
leaving her alonenot going after her 100%.The neocons, who are master’s at trade offs that further their agenda might be willing, given the difficulty of getting a GOP Pres, to tolerate Hillary because she will at least keep the imperialistic wars going, kowtow down to AIPAC, and many powerful corporate lobbies as well.
Also Hillary is another power-seeker. Please do not have any illusions at all about that. She can play hardball with the best, and her and Bill can be a ruthless political machine just on their own. Hillary’s a major political threat to the GOP, and she has proved she can survive and comeback strong from their primary tactic: the ad-hominem attack. She has made herself immune to the Monica issue, and the GOP knows there’s no mileage left in that. She’s even rebounded from her health-care PR disaster of the Bill years, and is back with a serious plan of her own that is a lot more sane (I said “more” sane… it has it’s problems, but that’s another discussion).
I see Hillary deciding she likes a lot of that executive privilege Darth put in place. She might give up on some high PR items, like conceding that Congress has the power to declare war, not the President, and restore habeas corpus and close the gulags in Guantanamo and other places only the CIA knows about. Those thing will get her a lot of polling points.
But when it comes to Presidential secrecy, or clearing the way for Darth and Rummy, and W to be tried at the Hague - I’m afraid she’s not going to be too forthcoming on those issues.
I think she’ll be plenty happy to let Darth, Inc. have its secrets for posterity as long as she gets to keep her secrets too.
And that will be bad for America, because the truths about the Bush years, from which important lessons can be gained for all Americans, will be lost….and possibly destined to be repeated.
Well that’s what history does: repeat itself.
Very well said. I doubt that any one candidate can or even could possess all the skills and talents necessary to turn things around again over night. I just feel so screwed, no matter which way we turn, we get dumped on… I pray for the tide to turn in the favor of the people. God help us all…
Hey Larry, Great post. What get’s me the most is exactly what you point out… so, because John Edwards is trying to do something about poverty, he should live in a hovel? That’s ludicrous. He is using his wealth to help those less fortunate. For those too young to remember, there once was a man named Percy Ross who tried to do the same with a newspaper column. By giving money to those in need. If I remember correctly, he was a Rethuglican, but also felt for those not as fortunate as he, while all the time understanding why they weren’t/couldn’t be as fortunate. The right will villify anyone any way they can, so FUCK FOX news and their crappola. It’s no longer journalism in this country, it’s opinionism. Hang Tough friend, Tap
The other day, when I was first reading this post, I looked up over the top of the computer to see on CNN, a brief panel discussion with some guest pundits, along with the caption, “Clinton vs Obama”. It’s as if, more than a year to go to the election, and still before the first primary, no one else matters. And not to pick on CNN, everybody does it.
I really have to wonder if the public is really as disinterested as MSM thinks they are about the less money raising candidates. There’s a ‘follow the bright shiny object’ aspect to it. Maybe also partly a matter of reporting on the biggest money raisers who will most likely spend the most on advertising with the media who’s doing the reporting.
What is surprising is how much following as oppposed to leading is done by the smaller media outlets. They may report somewhat more on the contenders with less money, but much of the time, they allow MSM to more or less define the perspective on campaign reporting.
Not being a career reporter or news outlet owner myself, who knows, maybe that’s the best that can be expected.
The reason I am interested in John Edwards is that he is the only candidate who has actually “drawn blood” (in the courtroom) from corporate America…and thus has some sense of what any person in government is up against.
Hillary is ok…but I suspect she will just be like any victim of domestic violence and be afraid to walk out the corporate door. She’s really only taken abuse, never really hit back hard.
She and Bill were never more than 1980’s yuppies who gave the country Republican lite after 12 years of Regean/Bush darkness.
It is amusing to fantasize about a Hitlery presidency where she actually is the avenging, bitch demoness the wingnuts think she is and who uses the unitary executive to inflict payback on everyone who ever slighted her or Big Bad Bill.
Neocons in dogcages in Gitmo…yeah…but I expect karma will have a slower working out.
mudkitty- shirin is right. clinton was war mongering globalist shit the same as bush. that he didn’t get us stuck in any quagmires is too his credit but he certainly laid the groundwork for iraq. yuo say small government is stupid, but then youpoint out that gore and clinton adhered to small government principles, especially in terms of balancing the budget. wasn’t that stupid of them?
john edwards is marxist. didn’t ben franklin say those who would trade freedom for security deserve niether. that goes double for the economy. and I’ve never even read Ayn Rand.
Edwards is marxist???? I’m sorry, that just makes no sense at all. If you’re going to make accusations like that, please back them up.
Talk about bullshit…
So Lester, if you’ve never read Ayn Rand, where do you get your “free” market/small government bullshit from, then?
OK, I’ve said this before but it seems rather appropo…
Reasons To Vote For Ron PaulDo we really need a FAA?
If I wanna get shit-faced and drive a car, isn’t that my business? I mean as long as I don’t hurt anyone, right?
Why do we have mining regulations? They know what they’re getting into.
States and local municipalities should decide if they want public education.
Why should I have to be insured to drive?
If a 12 year old kid can put in 60 hours a week at a steel mill, why shouldn’t a company be able to hire him or her? Too many regulations is what’s hurting the spirt of entrepeneurship in America!
It should be legal to get a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle off the internet, w/armor piercing capabilities, without a background check or proof of ID.
We have too many laws on the books as is. And if terrorists and the military have rocket launchers - well hell, shouldn’t I be able to get me one?
WHY SHOULDN’T FIRST COUSINS BE ABLE TO MARRY? Where in the constitution does it say anything about that? I challenge you.
If you, like me, want government off your back - vote Ron Paul!!
A Libertarian is a Republican who owns a bong.
Jezus Fred.. I think you’ve just come up with a bumper sticker..
Hey Taters…the market will take care of it…
LMAO.
Taters I assume you were being facetious. I do rather like what Ron Paul says. It is refreshing. Sorry Larry, nothing that comes out of Clinton’s mouth endears me to her. In fact the more I hear her voice the more I shudder about what is to come.
If there is a suspicion that Bush is inflexible, draconian and bias, then that is just a taste of what you are about to see with Clinton. Clinton will focus on moral impropriety. The sort of stuff you are taking about, Taters. She will be about completely removing choice in society’s interest.
But I digress…..back to the topic. Students critical of rich philantropists. It’s funny but the backgrounds of those critical of those critical of social excess at the expense of the poor are rarely checked. This is a shame, because it tends to be the offsping of stinking rich members of society who are the most critical of those [with clout] who speak out against social divide and, more importantly, raising the bar at the bottom.
I agree with pretty much everything you say, Larry. Pandering to snotty nosed college boys not fond of Jesus’ suggestions conflicting on their way of life actually gives their waffle some implied credibility.
By way of protest I will ignor the young man and hope he goes away.
Thinker,
Yes I was being facetious. I don’t know if you’re familiar with hate groups in the USA such as Storm Front but Paul gets a lot of support there. Those who have contempt of government can not govern. It’s rather simple.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-one-388512.html
I used to go look at stormfront sometimes when I wanted to scare myself silly.
Some of that got left off. I wrote: I used to go look at stormfront sometimes when I wanted to scare myself silly. Then the Bushies took over.
Will check it out Taters, thanks
hey taters- michael medved did that same guilt by association bs in a column the other day. i know, who knew he wrote columns. anyway, just letting you know that the neo con / leftist alliance you are forging is going strong. expect a cxheck from rupert any day now.
mudkitty- believe it or not, there is an entire AREA of study called economics. it’s been around for a long long time. adam smiths “welath of Nations” and Ludwig Von Mises “human action” are more my style and both pre date any rand.
This is why we can never trust the democrats to get us out of iraq. Their war is against capitalism, not interventionism.
To say that the Democratic Party is against Capitalism, is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.
Lester can you answer why he has so much support from those groups? Has he disavowed their support?
Lester…am I “forging an alliance” between leftists and neo-cons, from my guest-room/computer room? If you think that, you are off your rocker, totally and entirely.
And clearly you don’t know that Rand is a knock off off the very school of economics that you refer to. “Splains everything.” Yes, Lester - I am familiar with economics…I suggest you familiarize yourself with Naomi Klein, and others.
You are young, aren’t you?
And just referencing Medved, gives you away. Why are you here? Medved is one of the biggest fools on planet earth, next to Hewitt, although it is a big pond.
Why are you here Lester?
The sound of Lester Googleing furiously. Maybe even Wicking…
why am I here? you’re a liberal, like joe lieberman and Hillary clinton and all the other democrats who supported iraq and are now getting ready to bomb iran . why are YOU here? naomi klein isn’t an economist. neither is ayn rand.
taters- because he’s anti state.
Naomi Klein is an author who writes about economics, and the whole Chicago school of economics was inspired by Rand.
As for me, I don’t support Hillary nor Leiberman, nor the war in Iraq. So bzzzzz, wrong again, unsurprisingly.
I’m here because I like to read Mr. Johnson.
Now why are you here, Lester? Or will you just go on avoiding the questions and the points?
Lester,
This liberal never supported the invasion of Iraq. And neither did my two senators, Levin & Stabenow. So your assumption is wrong there.
It was two retired four star generals who convinced me more than anyone that Iraq wasn’t a threat to the US, (Contrary to the neocons and this WH) with their congresional testimony in the fall of 2002. Tony Zinni and Wes Clark. Zinni in the senate and Clark to the house. There was also the late senator from MN - Paul Wellstone. And another - the senior senator from MA., Ted Kennedy. They both also stated that it was Zinni & Clark’s testimony which was a primary factor to cast nay on Iraq.
There are people that I respect very much that support Ron Paul. Like Karen Kwiatkowski, a great American - who has taken more than her fair share of slings and arrows from many - including freepers and the like. There are some things I’ve read by Dr. Paul that I liked. And quite a few things that I haven’t.
As far as you regarding me being a neocon, you’re free to think what you choose. I consider myself a FDR/JFK Democrat. I also liked Ike and Jerry Ford. Nobody was more eloquent than Ford in his defense of Affirmative Action. I was opposed to NAFTA.
And on your same flawed logic - you could also call me a Nazi because Hitler loved German Shepherds and so do I.
Why don’t you simply address the issue - why hasn’t Ron Paul denounced the supremacists? Is it money? Is that where his uptick of funds came from - people who refer to David Duke as Dr. Duke?
Why is rhetoric that the UN is going to take over the US, including our armed forces - guns will be taken away from legal gun owners, Canada , Mexico and the US, like the European Union - will become one - you know the whole New World Order spiel - being spouted by him? You have enough sense to know what crowd that appeals to.
David Duke is saying register as a Republican and vote for Paul - why no comment from Paul or his camp?
And I sure didn’t need to read Medved to come to what I’ve found to be disturbing.
I assume I’ll get an answer once you get your talking points.
Respectfully,
Robert M Murray
An Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul
Posted by: Michael Medved at 6:30 PM
Dear Congressman Paul:
Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.
Do you welcome- or repudiate – the support of such factions?
More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press –a publication of the nation’s leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the “comforts and amenities” provided for inmates of Auschwitz.
Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?
As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?
As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.
Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?
Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.
Respectfully, Michael Medved
and taters, the newest neo con
how about try another line of questioning. or better yet, take 10 minutes to learn the “broken windows fallacy” of economics and see where we are coming from
mudkitty- pat buchanan, ron paul, and , obviously, antiwar.com, as well as other right wing and libertarian people and groups, were opposed to the war from the start. That can’t fairly be said about most of your party. and they aren’t doing a very good job of stopping the rush to war with iran, quite the contrary.
I read this blog because it deals with the government misinformation in perpetuating these conflicts.
I’m not intersted in some canadian persons assesment of capitalism. I’m intersted in capitalism itself. you are just another pro government huckster like Bush, except you want welfare instead of warfare. no thanks. not interested.
You are clearly a fan of death, Lester.
Let us hope karma rewards you expediently. But in the meantime you would do better to read more throughly to avoid poor conclusions and rhetoric. Your lack of attention is something you appear to have in common with your beloved leader.
I am beginning to feel I jumped the gun, by ignoring the young man critical of philanthropy. It appears there are others far more deserving of ignorance. I pray this place will eventually provide you enough wisdom to consider the prospect of a universe outside your little bubble. Though considering your output over the last couple of years, you seem intent to go for the rope. Go back to the start.
no idea what you’re talking about. my beloved leader?
In case everyone that’s jumping in on lester hasn’t noticed the US economy is in starting to flounder. lester has given me a few good laughs along the way & completely opened my mind to how diverse the U.S. Shia mindset is. He breaks alot of cliches. I thought this blog was suppose to be about national security anyway…Taters says, “I was opposed to NAFTA” but seems to be backing Mrs. NAFTA for pres…yeah go ahead keep voting Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton…& tell yourself you’re voting for change. Lester seems freaked about impending tax increases, Come on, we pay 35% income tax, plus sales tax + property tax, that’s getting close to 50% & all some politician has to say is “It’s for the children” & youall want to pay more. lester just wants to keep some of his $$$$$$ & cause he seems to identify as an Iranian-American he’s proably concerned about his family & friends in Iran. Give the guy a break. He’s anti-war & low tax, is that really so bad?
justsomeone- actually, I’m not iranian or a shia. I happen to post at a shia website but I’ve never even so much as opened a quran. i don’t post there much these days as i have been learning more about economics and am kind of all set with foreign policy for now. but it was an invaluable resource for sure way over any columnists or even books I read.
“all some politician has to say is “It’s for the children” & youall want to pay more”
that’s the thing. If it’s so important why don’t they cut something? You are trying to tell me there’s NOTHING in our 3 TRILLION dollar budget we can do without? besides, government will probably just ladle big helpings of behaviour modifying pills down their throats. to make them “healthy”.
justsomeone,
Unlike Dr. Paul, I’m not a fan of Milton Friedman. Nor Reaganomics, which I believe GHWB paid a price for.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html
Kinda partial to Warren Buffet, though. Or Gene Sperling & Peter Orszag.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gene-sperling/a-progrowth-progressive-_b_10637.html
http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2005/0426saving_orszag.aspx
I’ve been to England since the Iron Lady had her way. I happen to like Medicare and Social Security. And I believe labor laws are necessary. There is no coincidence that mining deaths have gone up since mining regulations have gone down. I strongly believe that regulatory agencies are necessary. I have no yearning to return to the Gilded Age. I happen to like the idea of a middle class. If you, like Grover Norquist believe that any social gains since Teddy Roosevelt are socialist, then call me a socialist.
I’ve addressed my own political views
on this thread more than I have since I’ve been coming to NQ.
And yes, I come here for issues of security and I appreciate the heck out of LJ. And my fellow NQ’ers. And it’s definitely one of my favorite sites. And I don’t believe Lester is a bad egg because we may disagree and despite what you may think - I think it’s good that he feels enthusiastic about his candidate of choice. I felt the same way about Wes Clark when he was in the mix. And I don’t think I was hard on Lester, nor do I consider myself more enlightened than him as the ‘possessor of the truth’…
I’m not against union mines or employees having collective bargaining. doctors have the medical association, dentists all those guys have what are essentially unions. I dn’t think they have helped keep manufacturing in this country do you? quite the contrary
as far as medicare and ss,again that’s not “the government”. that’s our money. and the lions share of our taxes goes to wars and beaurocratic bullshit, not that stuff.
Lestr,
You make an excellent point here.
zyban…
news…