And You Wonder Why I Haven’t Registered As a Democrat
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 November 2, 2007 at 6:49 PM in Current Affairs
Let’s hear it for Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, 21st century sonderkommandos, because they are helping install an Attorney General who parses words and facts while refusing to delcare that water boarding is torture. For the poorly educated, sonderkommandos were Jewish prisoners in the Nazi death camps who helped entice unsuspecting Jewish men, women, and children into the gas chambers and helped dispose of the bodies. And yes, I mean the comparison.
I am sure my characterization of Feinstein and Schumer in this regard will be condemned but so be it. It is what it is. As a teenager reading William Shrier’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, I was fascinated and horrified to learn that some Jewish prisoners willingly took part in helping the Nazis exterminate other Jews. I grant you, Feinstein and Schumer are not executing anyone, but they are putting their blessing on a man so clueless that he does not know that a practice that mimics drowning is torture.
I had always assumed that Jews who survived the Holocaust or the relatives of those who were murdered under the Nazi plan would understand the importance of standing against tyrants and torturers. And for the most part that has been true. But now we are confronted with the spectacle of two prominent Jewish American legislators who are enabling a President who has authorized torture. They have no shame.
I will be changing my registration as a Republican in the State of Maryland (I will register as an independent). But I will be damned if I leave one group of clowns who will not protect the Constitution and habeus corpus and condemn torture to join a party with an equally clueless group of clowns. When the likes of Feinstein and Schumer decide it is okay to have someone running the Justice Department who cannot figure out that water boarding is torture, then they are part of the problem.
Well, nobody is being executed, at least not yet. But by signing off on a potential Attorney General who is unwilling to condemn without reservation a practice that is inhuman and illegal, we can begin to understand how seemingly decent people will let themselves participate, whether by omission or commission, in facilitating the violation of international conventions. The road to gas chambers starts when good people find excuses to justify torture and murder. Feinstein and Schumer are enablers.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Phone (202) 224-2447
Fax (202) 969-0354For general information email info@dscc.org
For media inquiries email press@dscc.org
For employment opportunities email grassroots@dscc.org
For internship opportunities email grassroots@dscc.org.
For technical/Web issues email webmaster@dscc.org.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
There is a reason I refer to Diane Feinstein as Lieberman lite.
I would have said Lieberman with tits, but same idea.
Some Dems are just as bad as the Republicans, outside of Fiengold and Kucinich has any other Dem stood up consistantly to uphold the Constitution?
Call me crazy but the more I listen/read-up on Ron Paul the better he looks. He’s been steadfast on his message and speaks truth to power, even when laughed at by the other Republican candidates and boo-ed upon by the Fixed-Fox dabates. I just don’t see any other candidate that wants to Restore the Constitution as much as Ron Paul.
You’re right. There are some men and women of principle. Unfortunately, when there is a real chance to make a difference, folks like Feinstein and Schumer fail to stand up.
you are a fool johnson
Ron Paul talks a good talk about the Constitution and i believe him, but i can’t give him my vote because of the impending retiring Supreme Court judges and a woman’s right to choose. i also have issues with his views on unregulating businesses.
it appears to have some associations with a few hate groups / white separatist groups — see these posts on Orcinus.
Man of the Hour
Saturday, June 02, 2007
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html
The Trouble with Ron
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/trouble-with-ron.html
Ron Paul vs. the New World Order
Friday, June 08, 2007
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html
(the link-y thing wouldn’t work for me. sorry)
peg,
PICKY, PICKY, PICKY! The important issue is the Gold Standard. Ron Paul wants to return to it, as in back-to-the-future. He’s also in favor of, “a good 5-cent cigar.” Need I say more?
….Call me crazy but the more I listen/read-up on Ron Paul the better he looks. He’s been steadfast on his message and speaks truth to power….
Agreed 100% about Ron Paul. I hope all Democrats are aware that they have to change their registraton to Republican in order to vote for him.
Personally I can’t really get behind the guy who gets the endorsement of Stormfront radio.
Left and right republicans
That is all we have. We have been suckered. Continue to vote dem for prez = BIGGER SUCKER
The Yellow Congress needs to face another republican prez.
Vote republican (for prez) or stay home.
There is a reason people should unregister as Democrats and it’s the same one you have for not registering as one. Not to say anyone should be registered Republican either, but we REALLY have to stop encouraging their cowardice and perfidy and start ACTIVELY opposing it. I do so wish we could all register with the American Freedom Campaign… yesterday.
I just recieved my father’s medals from WWII. If I weren’t saving them fos someone else, I wuld be sending them to those two torture apologists.
It is hard to find anything positive in their decision, but hopefully, they will be out of Congress soon. What a disgrace!!
I 100% agree with Larry Johnson on this issue. What I think Larry could use pulpit to point out is just how bad Feinstein and Schumer have been in the past. In particular, Dianne Feinstein, Incorporated, has been one of the most insipid figures in the Senate for a very long time. She’s an absolute Royalist at heart and has no values whatsoever beyond her own interests.
Also, I am with Larry - it’s time to dump the party affiliation. The Republicans obviously don’t deserve votes and the Democrats either. I’ve been a registered Democrat for my entire adult life but I’m dumping those ass clowns. Independent, yep.
I just moved back to KAuai and have to register to vote. I have decided to register Independent. I was right on the fence but no longer. The 06 election was our vote for change and nothing has changed. If anything, it has gotten worse. Now they are trying to march us into another war and condone spying on us, torturing and shitting all over the Constitution. I am just as pissed as you Larry at the Dems but what about the repubs too. I know we all expect them to vote the way they do but damn can these people really all be that stupid or are they just greedy?
Thank you Larry for saying what needed to be said. They are truly enablers, and we, as a part of the human race, should be outraged, as you clearly are, at the continued lack of shame that they show. I trust you to continue to stand as tall and honorably as you always have. We must keep on top of this, and I know you will… Thanks for all you do. I am unregistering my party as well. I am just a few years a Dem, but will not vote for anyone in a party of enablers. Guilt by association. How very sad a world we now live in…
I haven’t sent them a dime despite repeated requests..disgusting.
Amen Larry. Yeah, the curled fetal position seems to be the position a lot of them take when it’s time to make a stand. I also heard their excuses as to why, too. Pitiful. If you won’t stand up for something you’ll - (feel free to insert the appropriate words here)!
No I won’t give them money either. I will do everything I can to see them, and the rest of the minions buried deep in the ground, politically. I keep sending their solicitations back at their own expense. Shame on me, but my comments are too very crude to re-publish here… They make me sick.
Hiya Prchrlady,
Of course I was glad to have supported people like Jim Marciniak, Jim Webb, Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak and a few others in ‘06. I just stopped sending to the national and state level. Just indiviual candidates, which is what I’ll continue to do. It’s not like I’m George Soros.:)I like ActBlue and VoteVets. Sandy Levin is my Rep., I’m happy about that. And as you know - his brother Carl and Debbie Stabenow are pretty decent. I’ve written a lot of letters to them and the responses do not appear to be form letters, as opposed to what I’ve seen and heard of Boxer and Feinstein.
Umm, Mukasey isn’t clueless. He’s being evasive, because acknowledging the obvious might force him to investigate the obvious, and that means investigating the President.
On that subject, John Dean has a good point:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/057806.php
But, given the way a number of Democrats are behaving, you’d think that it was still the day after 9/11/01. Funny, though, it’s the Dems in Congress that seem the most terrorized of the citizenry–by Bush and Cheney, not bin Laden.
Speaking of 9-11, Thom Hartmann will be talking about what really happened next week.
The same that I eviscerated (Michael Shermer) on Washington Journal will be a guest.
So much for Mukasey being independent, and for the rulr of law.
Larry, I would have used the term, “Judas Goats,” because the whole Nazi comparison seems like an hysterical overreach to people who aren’t already sympathetic to your point of view. Or maybe “Quislings,” would be religiously neutral.
Reminds me of the founding of the Republican Party in 1854 in reverse: “We entered the meeting hall as Republicans, but left as Democrats, Independents, Populists, Libertarians, Christian Puritans, and Worshippers of Mammon. All that remained of the GOP was the unpaid rental on the hall, which no one would assume responsibility for–our only point of agreement in a highly contentious final meeting. When the Chairman moved that we adjourn sine die it was received with relief and passed unanamously.”
I lived in California for many years, and Feinstein is utterly disgusting. It didn’t used to show up so much before we got this anti-Constitutional regime in charge. But now when it really matters, she and so many other Congressional Dems are utterly useless.
I will say this: my Democratic reps in Oregon Ron Wyden, and especially Pete DeFazio in the House are pretty good. And I’m going to stay a Dem because at least where I’m located democracy is still viable at the local level.
I sent a letter to Leahy suggesting that he have one more round of hearings with Mukasey on national television, and while there, have a water boarding demonstration. Have Mukasey, a Republican, Schumer or Di-Fi be an eager volunteer. Then we’ll see what America really thinks about water boarding.
Its time for us ordinary Americans to get creative since Congress and the Bush Administration have sold us out.
Oh, that is perfect. Would love to know if you get a response back. Send it to Olbermann. MAybe he will talk about that concept on air.
Maybe since Larry has the media contacts he could suggest this to Olbermann?? I did see on the news this morning that a DOJ official volunteered and took part in a staged water boarding demonstration and was fired three years ago for doing this….and according to reports he was a yes-man in the Bush Administration.
Maybe Keith could have an entire show on some of the more torturous techniques that are outlawed by the Geneva Conventions.
I’m serious when I say its time for us ordinary Americans to get creative. Otherwise, we are going to end up under martial law like those in Pakistan. Its happening right under our noses.
If you live in Texas, you don’t have to select a political party when registering to vote. Lots of Ron Paul bumper stickers here in the North Houston area.
Waiting in Texas. I am a registered Texas voter. I vote absentee but I think I’m registered in Texas as a Democrat. Are you sure I don’t have to unregister in Texas in order to vote for Ron Paul? Please advise ASAP. Thanks.
So happy to hear there are lots of Ron Paul bumper stickers in North Houston.
And remember, folks, Ron Paul is from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia. When was the last time we had a president from one of the original 13 colonies? JFK — Massachusetts!
My mistake. The last president from an orginal colony was Jimmy Carter from Georgia. He wasn’t all that bad THEN and he’s definitely not bad NOW!
Where do you people get your information? There is NO party registration in Texas. Everyone registers the same–as a registered voter. On Primary Day each voter can decide to vote in the Republican Primary OR the Democratic Primary. Then if there’s a Runoff Primary, only voters who voted in that party’s Primary OR didn’t vote in either Primary are eligible to vote in the Runoff. Only voters who DIDN’T vote in either Party Primary are eligible to sign ballot petitions for Independent or Minor Party candidates.
In the next election cycle everyone resets to Registered Voter again and starts over. So you can vote in the Republican Primary in one election and the Democratic Primary in the next election, because your previous transgression is forgiven under the Statute of Limitations, so to speak.
This is basically an Open Primary system in which you declare yourself a Republican or Democrat for the purposes of participating in the Primary, but without adopting it as your permanent affiliation.
Welcome to the club (of independents, that is), Larry. I only disagree with one part of your piece. I don’t care what body of law, international or otherwise, does or does not authorize torture, and whether or not our government conforms or doesn’t conform to such laws. I am against torture purely on moral grounds as an absolute.
The fact that torture is unnecessary (see my comment below) makes this “debate” even more sorrowful. It truly shows how little we are as a people.
You just say shit like this because you are a thoroughly decent soul. A brave and honorable one at that. And since I know you and a bit of your history I only wish our current leaders had a tenth of your integrity. We’d all be better off and well served if that was the case.
Semper Fi
Hey Larry, did you hear about this?
I saw a documentary about Nazi Art and how after Germany was occupied by the Allies the paintings were seized so they wouldn’t inspire more Nazism. Guess what? The paintings taken by U.S. forces were shipped to the U.S. and hung in Federal Office Buildings as a sort of visual Muzak. Some years ago the paintings were returned to Germany, so more uh, CONVENTIONAL art had to be substituted. The funny thing is that very few people realized what they were looking at! One wonders if it didn’t have a subliminal effect. Funny how Cheney seems to walk with a pronounced goosestep.
Do these Vichy Dems have any idea how much they just cost and co$t the D party? Do they care? Are they saboteurs? What are they? Any leadership around? A Senate whip, maybe?
As an Indie in Floorduh, I can’t vote in the primaries. I feel liberated! The primaries are used as a carrot or a hook to keep people within the 2-party construct; makes them think they have a say, which of course they don’t.
Sorry, forgot to add that it seems the bu$hCo wreckers are not only taking down the R party, but the D party right along with it. This may be beneficial somewhere down the line in laying the foundation for the rise of other, better parties.
“Vichy Dems”. Fantastic, I’m adding that one to my phrasebook, giving you full credit, of course!
Retired, wish I could take credit, but that one’s been floating around for awhile now.
They’re always shocked, shocked!, I tell you.
I could not agree more, Larry. I have worked with torture victims for 25 years and the damage done to them is lifelong and devastating. Schumer and DiFi are complicit and they deserve to face the same charges as the rest of this criminal government. I have been a lifelong Democrat, but they are no better than BushCo. I am so ashamed of my government.
Larry,
You won’t get any condenmnation from me. What happened to this man??
Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey’s confirmation hearings got underway this morning…
Not only did Michael Mukasey repudiate the so-called 2002 “torture memo” signed by Office of Legal Counsel chief Jay Bybee — which appears to have survived in spirit, if not in letter — but he compared U.S. torture to the Holocaust.
Chomsky said the persecuted became persecutors. This applies to Schumer, Mukasey, Lieberman and any other Stella Goldschlag types who are in bed with the devil to save themselves.
Speaking of saving themselves, I wonder what will happen to derail the AIPAC hearing now that Condi, Grossman and others will be called to testify.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/057806.php
Scott Horton has an interesting take on Mukasey’s predicament at—
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001567
I agree 100% that Feinstein & Schumer are worse than useless. Nevertheless, my state does not have open primaries, so I will remain registered as a Dem so I can vote for progressive candidates in the primary, and get rid of the Lieberdems.
hi folks
I can understand some frustration with the dems here..
I am a lifelong democrat..there are good ones and there are useless ones..But we are the party of the people..We were a minority party during a very difficult time in america’s history..Soon we will be a majority party in congress and the White House.
Changes will come..attitudes will change..leaders will emerge..That’s my outlook.
You know i have to say something..alot of people have bashed Feinstein here..and to tell you the truth i haven’t kept up with her politics lately..BUT..Let me explain a history with her..
This lady has character and experience, i would be careful of bashing her..
I remember I was in college in California when she was thrust into the limelight when harvey milk was gunned down in SF. Later she became a us senator. she did great while i was there. I’m proud of her.
She makes me proud..
You know it’s so easy to be an armchair quarterback with politics..we forget the give and take and the compromises required to be leaders..
like in sports..we bitch when the point guard sees a play and makes a bad pass or the no.2 guard shoots from 25 ft. out and misses an open shot. In football the running back cuts left instead of right and gets thrown for a loss..That’s life, that’s the way it goes..But a winning team wins more than it loses.
A hall of fame batter only hits 1 out of 3 balls..yet we expect a batting average of 1000% or else we bitch and moan..
I don’t expect my politician to be perfect..but i expect him to win more than lose..and to have character, goals and expectations to help america.
Let’s join together and defeat the GOP and take back america..leave the unrealistic expectations at the door..
There is alot of work to do.it won’t get done in a day..no great feat is done in a day…
the hoopster
Let her character reflect her vote. To me, her vote will reflect her character, and I can not look the other way.
Umm, hoops, this ain’t sports. Especially in the Senate–it’s supposed to be a careful, deliberative process. These people are supposed to have our best interests at heart, and are supposed to act, carefully, on both best instincts and the will of the people.
Both of those compel thinking people to reject any nominee for Attorney General whose primary concern is protecting the wrongdoing of high officials, and that protection is evident in Mukasey’s evasions on questions ranging from definitions of torture, to the “unitary executive,” to the voter ID question. If he spoke of those honestly and directly, his motives could be discerned. But, he did not. That’s prima facie evidence that his nomination should not be confirmed. The way to prevent the nomination of Mukasey is to never let it out of committee, and Schumer and Feinstein have seen to it that it will. If Mukasey is evasive–or if his views are ill-thought out or offensive to democratic principles, or if there’s even a whiff of partisanship–there’s no need for discussion. He’s not the best candidate.
More to the point, regarding Feinstein–this is not an isolated instance of capitulation. This is part of a long history of giving in to Bush’s threats. Whatever you may have believed of her performance in the past, you must look dispassionately at her voting record in the last few years and judge this decision of hers in a more current context. Too often, influential Democrats have relied upon the “well, it’s not the best [bill, candidate, nominee, fill in the blank] that we could have, but it’s the best we’re going to get” excuse. In those instances, they have invariably acceded to Bush, rather than saying, “it’s not good enough.”
Given the available history of the past nearly seven years, there’s no reason for any sentient, sensible person to give Bush what he wants, because what he ultimately wants is unrestricted and unrestrained power, which he will, given his character and performance, misuse. Diane Feinstein ought to know that. I do.
This is how bad she is
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/23/feinstein/
Dianne Feinstein, symbol of the worthless Beltway Democrat
her votes over the last several years, and especially this year after she was safely re-elected, are infinitely closer to the Bush White House and her right-wing Senate colleagues than they are to the base of her party or to the constituents she allegedly represents. Just look at what she has done this year on the most critical and revealing votes:
* Voted in FAVOR of funding the Iraq War without conditions;
* Voted in FAVOR of the Bush White House’s FISA bill to drastically expand warrantless eavesdropping powers;
* Voted in FAVOR of condemning MoveOn.org;
* Cast the deciding vote in August on the Senate Judiciary Committee in FAVOR of the nomination of far right Bush nominee Leslie Southwick to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In 2006, Feinstein not only voted in favor of extending the Patriot Act without any of the critical safeguards sought by Sen. Feingold, among others, but she was one of the most outspoken Democratic proponents arguing for its extension (”I have never been in favor of allowing any provisions of the Patriot Act to expire.”). Also in 2006, she not only voted in favor of amending the Constitution to outlaw flag burning, but was, as she proudly described herself, “the main Democratic sponsor of this amendment.”
In October of 2002, she (naturally) voted to authorize President Bush to use military force to invade Iraq. She now self-servingly claims that she “regrets” the vote and was tricked by the Bush administration into believing Saddam had WMDs, yet Scott Ritter has disclosed: “This is far different from the statement Feinstein made to me in the summer of 2002, when she acknowledged that the Bush administration had not provided any convincing intelligence to back up its claims about Iraqi WMD.” And when it was revealed in August of this year that Awad Allawi had hired the most influential GOP lobbying firm to help oust Prime Minister Maliki, there was Sen. Feinstein leading the way in demanding Maliki’s ouster.
Time and again, not only does she vote in favor of the most right-wing aspects of the Bush agenda, she uses her alleged expertise in areas of intelligence to pressure or give comfort to other Democrats wanting to do the same. Several of the 16 Democratic Senators who voted in favor of Bush’s FISA bill in August, such as Jim Webb, cited assurances by Feinstein that she had obtained Secret Information as a member of the Intelligence Committee which proved how necessary this bill was. Similarly, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, she was one of the Democratic leaders urging the confirmation of Gen. Michael Hayden as CIA Director notwithstanding the central role he played as NSA Director in Bush’s illegal surveillance programs.
Her primary allegiance is to the Beltway power system and her overwhelming affection is reserved for Beltway power brokers who are her true colleagues and constituents.
Feinstein and Schumer have carried water for the Bush crowd on a whole host of important judicial issues. They should be roundly condemned for allowing this nomination to get to the floor. Too bad DiFi just won re-election last year.
But I am very uncomfortable with you using the sonderkommandos analogy. Indicting them as Jewish apologists for Nazis is quite beyond the pale.
I’m not totally happy with the analogy either. It’s quite unfair to the Sondercommandos, who were forced to do what they did, or die. Nobody is holding a gun to Feinstein & Schumer’s heads.
I guess that was supposed to be clever on your part? As a Jewish person, I find the analogy offensive.
Utterly predictable. In fact, Larry did predict it.
Good way to dismiss a whole lotta progressive voters, Karin. But it’s nothing new.
And it’s still offensive.
good morning..ok about my posting last night about feinstein. Here should be rule #1.
last night it was boy’s night out and the hoopster came home and blogged..probably not a good idea..Sorry about that.
I remember when diana was first elected into the senate and some rethug was blasting her on the floor about her stand on gun control.
she turned to him and said something like ‘Senator..i came into office because of gun violence..don’t you dare preach to me..’
I said ‘that’s my girl’ stood up to 90+ old white rich guys in the senate..
The hoopster likes dems, women or men that stand up to the GOP.
Think I’ll email her and remind her
of those days and how she needs to stand up to them now more than ever….
Well, the Sonderkommando analogy isn’t apt. It’s really overdramatic, to say the least. But there were lots of civil servants, professors, lawyers, and politicians in German society who had not been Nazis, who became enablers of the new regime when it became expedient, or even earlier, when they might have been able to do something useful to stop it. That’s where I place people like Feinstein, Schumer, and other Washington Dems who have served as collaborators. I also put moderate Republicans who really knew better yet collaborated in this category. The Hagels are few and far between.
As for Feinstein’s career: like I said up higher in this thread, before the Bushies came to power, her conservatism really placed her simply as a conservative Dem, and she mainly served to balance the more liberal Boxer. It wasn’t so much of an issue. But since Bush took over, she’s really been a sellout on a lot of issues. Now people change over the years, and sometimes they get more conservative as they get older, and sometimes after they’ve been in Washington a very long time, they get indebted to various vested interests. I don’t know what’s happened to her. But she’s sold out to the criminal gang.
There’s pros and cons to either registering Dem on going Indie. Indie is the morally correct choice, the truest one to stick by policies you believe in.
The only problem with it is where is the Indie candidate that can win in 2008? We can all vote for our favorite obscure (but right, dammit!) candidate and we will end up with a Republican President.
What Dennis Kucinich says is right a lot of the time.What Ralph Nader says is right a lot of the time.
But they aren’t going to be President. America is not going to elect for President a vegan who hangs out at Shirley MacClaine’s house in hopes of seeing a UFO. Even if what he says is right.
And Ralph Nader’s campaign was busted by an effort that came largely from the Democratic Party in 2004.
There’s only one candidate with a political machine behind them that has even a chance in blue hell of battling the Cheney machine. And we all know who that is.
And there’s lots of things to not like about her. And die-hard Republicans hate her and her ex-Pres husband with that special brand of 180-proof pure vitriol matched only by the extreme left’s guttural, enraged hatred of Bush/Cheney.
So everybody vote for whatever candidate most fulfills their fantasies of the perfect president.
And the GOP will, in perfect Aryan lockstep, all unanimously vote for their single “chosen” candidate.
Who wins that election?
Think about it.
we need a new party. I wonder if there are enough of us yet to form something like the “common sense” party? No politicians would be eligible. No one has to be a member, only persons that ask constituents what they want and accept no contributions could be considered.
Most likely the party would have to select someone that did not want the job. That way we might get a responsible person for a change. Democracy is possible, but for it’s enemies.
[...] Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer will vote to confirm Michael Mukasey Filed under: Chuck Schumer, Democratic Party, Diane Feinstein, Justice Department, Michael Mukasey — jr @ 10:58 pm Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer will vote to confirm Michael Mukasey [...]
Sonderkommando Jesus Larry……
Spineless, affraid of their own shadow, testicly challenged, but sonderkommando….
Still I must admit being shocked (it is really hard these days to admit that being we are living in a shock laden environment…)
Still, our DEMS are the good guys, we just have to keep hammering them to do the right thing….
It seems the long twilight in the minority role has left DEEP scars and timidity, we just have to keep pushing….and try to not loose faith, and YES you need to register as a DEM, think OUR platform vs. THEIR platforms, YOU are a SPINE lade guy and can help bring out that in our fellow dems….
Tom
and as rick said in Casablanca “confusion to the enemy”
Larry,
I usually agree with you, but not this time.
Because comparing Feinstein and Schumer to the sondercommandos is a bit beyond the pale. Because, as Shoephone points out, the sondercommandos had guns pointed at their heads. No one is pointing a gun at Schumer or Feinstein.
For the sondercommandos disposing of the corpses meant a few more days, weeks, months of life. It meant that, if they survived, they could bear witness against the terrible crimes. The Nazis forced them into that position. What choice did they have? They knew the Nazis would murder them eventually too. Because the sondercommandos were often privileged to have inside information about Nazi operations, they became a liability. The Nazis would kill the old sondercommanders, and have the new ones destroy the corpses of their predecessors. The sondercommanders knew there was a death sentence over them.
Plus, I’ve read stories of how people enroute to the gas chambers saw the sondercommandos sobbing and trying to join the condemned, which would be a death sentence if the Nazis saw them. The victims forgave them and begged them to survive in order to bear witness. The sondercommandos probably had to watch friends, family and neighbors being killed. There’s no comparison between sondercommandos and Bush enablers.
It’s offensive to draw these WWII analogies: Whether we compare Bush to Hitler or Democratic leaders to sondercommandos. Neither is true, nor is it accurate.
Plus, it’s offensive that anyone would compare Feinstein and Schumer to sondercommandos just because they’re Jewish. Why do Feinstein and Schumer have a greater moral obligation than anyone else? Would you expect Cambodians, for example, to have a greater moral obligation against tyranny and war, just because they survived the Khmer Rouge?
I don’t like Feinstein or Schumer very much either. But these casual comparisons trivialize the horrors of WWII, making what happened appear less threatening. As if the terrors of the concentration camps were about support for Mukasey. As bad as Feinstein and Schumer are on this issue, they don’t rise to the level of the holocaust. That’s why these types of comparisons are so offensive.
I also don’t get why Feinstein and Schumer would prevent anyone from registering as a Democrat? Why would two bad eggs, or more accurately two mediocre eggs, be cause to join or not join a political party? There are bad eggs, mediocre eggs, really good eggs in every party. The reason for joining a political party ought to be the party platform, what the party stands for, not the actions of one or two members.
Hey! I was the one who said the sondercommandos had guns pointed to their heads, not shoephone. And yes, I think we do expect greater moral authority from people who have suffered injustice themselves. I expect Vietnamese to be against ever dropping napalm on anyone. I expect black South Africans to be against any form of apartheid. I expect Jewish people to be horrified at any type of concentration camp, whether in Bosnia or Gitmo. Plus, they do make that “Never Again” claim.
“I expect Jewish people to be horrified at any type of concentration camp, whether in Bosnia or Gitmo.”
Or Gaza? Or the West Bank? Oh - no, wait. Those would be more like ghettos, wouldn’t they? Or, as some people refer to them, Bantustans.
Apologies Karin, thought it was Shoephone.
Leslie, thank you for your well articulated and thought provoking response. I spent some deal of time through the night thinking about what you said, and examining my own feelings. Only a few writers have had that kind of effect on me over the years, some in greater depth than others.
I find that my outrage, at the deeds of these enablers is so great, that I felt that release of tension when hearing their crimes called out for what they are, despite the ‘tag’ not really being an honest assessment of the actual situation. Now, that is not to say that I don’t agree on some viseral level with the analagy. I know I do, or I would not have felt it. But it can still be wrong. And not gereally productive in any good meaning of the phrase. You are right on this point.
That being said, I hope that others will also look within themselves for strength and understanding, as we do live in very dangerous and pitiful times… that we even are of needs discussing this stupid decision of Feinstein and Schumer is testament enough… Where is the common sense? where is the outrage? where are we heading if we turn on one another??
Thanks PrchrLady,
Yeah…I think there are other names we could call Feinstein and Schumer without injecting religion into it. For example: Bush enablers, torture-abetters, cowards or whatever…and I think those labels would be more effective and to the point.
Because I’ll bet the ensuing conversation below, which I haven’t read yet, is all about Judaism and not about Mukasey.
[Note: My analogy to Cambodia's killing fields wasn't well thought out. What I meant was it was amazing if the Cambodian's survived Pol Pot. Just survived! But, as far as Feinstein and Schumer are concerned, they never experienced WWII death camps. Maybe they had family who did, but they never did themselves. And really it's not relevant to Mukasey.]
Is Feinstein Jewish? I read long ago that she was Catholic.
Anyway, the comparison is apt. We could also call the idiots Court Jews. How would that be?
March 14, 2003
An Open Letter to Paul Wolfowitz
To My Former Dean and Other “Court Jews”
by JOSH RUEBNER
My brother, I don’t blame you for accepting the starring role of “court Jew.” It must be a pretty amazing feeling to convince yourself that you have as much power as everybody says that you do. I hope that I never get close enough to the power structure of this crumbling, decrepit empire to get a taste of it. In my humble opinion, there is only one honorable thing that you can do to undo the shameful damage that you have caused already: resign. For the sake of your own dignity, you must refuse to be exploited as the “court Jew.” Step down and deprive the power structure of its “court Jew” and you will expose to the world the actors who really motivate the Bush Administration. Please, before it is too late, tell the world that it is not the powerless Jews who are pushing for this war, but the greedy, venal barons of corporate America who stand to profit while cowering behind the myth of the all-powerful Jew. Tell everybody what you and I both know. That the real interests hawking for this war are the defense contractors and the oil industry who will make billions of dollars to first destroy Iraq and then “rebuild” it under the protective wing of American “democracy.” And, while you’re at it, please tell the world that the $100 billion the Bush Administration will require to pay the military-industrial complex to finance this war of aggression will be sucked from the wallets of the impoverished American working class which is systematically being stripped of government services by this rapacious regime.
http://www.counterpunch.org/ruebner03142003.html
I appreciate your reasoned disagreement. I acknowledge being deliberately provocative. But I also will not hinder others, like you, from challenging me, particularly when it is done in an intelligent manner.
Best
Thanks Larry, your interest in hearing well-reasoned opposing views is one of the reasons why I like your blog. Know you were trying to be provocative. I can think of a few things to call Schumer and Feinstein too.
But one of the problems with comparing them to Sondercommandos is that it diverts the conversation toward religion and away from your point about Mukasey.
That sonderkommando reference may or may not be over the top, Larry, because of its holocaust inference, but no one really knows how many “guns to the head” bu$hCo holds. Look at how key people appear to be easily “gotten to” and how they flip seemingly overnight.
The now-familiar phrase, “leaving to spend more time with my family” has a sinister undertone and implies, “while I still have a family to spend more time with.” Under bu$hCo, it’s “no one here gets out alive.”
I don’t give a damn if people had guns pointed to their heads.
People making excuses for the complicity of others past and present really amaze me.
Some things are worth dying for.
That’s soooooo easy to say when you are not the one with a gun pointed at your head by someone demanding you betray your principles. It’s quite a different matter when the bullet that could end one’s life is real and a few inches from your head, as many a former moralizer-for-others has discovered.
Never allow the water boarding apologists to use the term water boarding without the accompanying “disclaimer” … “water boarding, the torture technique used by the Nazi SS and Gestapo during WW II …”
For example, “The future AG of the United States of America, the highest law enforcement officer in the land, was today unable to declare water boarding illegal. Water boarding was the torture technique used by the Nazi SS and Gestapo during WW II. The torture technique origins date back to the Spanish Inquisitions of the late 14th century.”
We have been betrayed.
I saw some of christine amanpour’s religious nuts series on CNN. on the Jewish one, they showed George HW trying to make a stand against the settlement creation going on in israel. they had a great shot of shumer on some talk show phoning it in for AIPAC much to our subsequent detriment. jerk
sonderkommando does fit. It is someone that under the pain of punishment up to death, turns on their people and kills them for their new master. It indicates someone that would rather be comfortable than human.
You will note that when the bandini hits the ventilator, schumer and feinstein vote against their party. They have done so on so many occasions that one must draw conclusions based on these specific votes. It could be they are in the pay of the Israeli lobby? They do not vote with the people of their state, and that is the best indicator. I am convinced that the way they voted, they have committed treason. You can’t vote for someone that you know to be a criminal, or to be installed by someone you know to be a criminal, that is obviously being installed to further a criminal agenda. Why is this action by the exu acceptable to anyone?
Larry; would you consider, if someone else hasn’t, putting something together about likely future scenarios? With all the intel you have, show us what can’t be changed about our world. That which we don’t have the bulldozers or helicopters or dynamite to change to our advantage. Let’s compare the physical realities of the world, to potential political issues. If we concentrated on a few staples of life, we may be able to better visualize what happens when the oil is gone, the water is re distributed, the air, etc…
We make no sacrifices for the war because those profiting wish for us to enjoy our normal life, it gives stability to anyone that can hide the truth from the people, and continue their war of plunder.
It would perhaps educate people as to just how difficult it may be to support the existing population, and how this little globe is going to change, before our eyes. Some of these are obvious, some are far more obscure and visible only to those with access to the information.
The sondercommandos didn’t kill anyone. The Nazis did that. The sondercommandos would bury the corpses.
In my state you can’t vote in the primaries if you register Independent. So, I’ll pick the lesser of two evils, because it IS the LESSER of two evils.
….Is Feinstein Jewish? I read long ago that she was Catholic….
Feinstein is not Jewish. Furthermore, I don’t know any Jewish girls with the first name “Diane”. More likely, Feinstein was/is married to a German or German-Amercan. I went to school with a girl named Peggy Rosenberger. She was as Catholic as they come and always annoyed that people assumed she was Jewish.
Feinstein is Jewish. I believe she had a Catholic mother and a Jewish father and formally converted to Judaism in her late teens or early adulthood. Her husband is Jewish.
When did she convert?
Neither is my mother for the same reason. She didn’t convert either.
Dianne Feinstein was born in San Francisco, California, on June 22, 1933, to a Jewish physician father, Leon Goldman, and a Catholic Russian-American mother, Betty Rosenburg Goldman
http://www.notablebiographies.com/Du-Fi/Feinstein-Dianne.html
None of my business.
I don’t mess with the religious beliefs of other people, especially when I don’t know them.
….Dianne Feinstein was born in San Francisco, California, on June 22, 1933, to a Jewish physician father, Leon Goldman, and a Catholic Russian-American mother, Betty Rosenburg Goldman….
Catholic mother. Hence, the given name “Diane”.
….Dianne Feinstein was born in San Francisco, California, on June 22, 1933, to a Jewish physician father, Leon Goldman, and a Catholic Russian-American mother, Betty Rosenburg Goldman….
Yes, indeed. All the MORE reason for Diane Feinstein’s mother to practce her Catholic religion and have her daughter baptized. She was NOT in Russia. She was in America where she had the FREEDOM to practice!
Born to a Catholic mother who gave her the given name of “Diane” means that Diane Feinstein was baptized in the Catholic Church and that she also received the sacraments of Holy First Communion at age seven and Confirmation at age 14. It would be VERY unusual for a Catholic girl to change her religion as a teenager or young adult. Where is the proof that she did so? Also, most Catholics who marry outside their religion do not convert. If Diane Feinstein was Catholic when she married a Jew, she would have been required to raise her children as Catholics.
Diane Feinstein and her husband are both Jewish. So what?
The only way to be Jewish is according to the laws of the Jewish Religion: The only way to be Jewish is to be born of a Jewish mother or to convert. That’s it. The question, did DF convert? And I don’t see how that is anyone’s business.
That may be the only way to be Jewish according to Jewish religious law, but it most certainly is not the only way to be Jewish.
Jewishness is not only religiously defined. Just ask the next secular Jew you come across. In fact, I daresay that even most religious Jews will tell you that the definition of Jewishness goes beyond, and is separate from religion.
A person who has some degree of Jewish family background, and who considers himself Jewish certainly qualifies as Jewish. The Nazis and other anti-Semites took it even farther, and defined as a Jew anyone who had any degree of Jewish ancestry whether they defined themselves as Jewish or not.
Diane Feinstein has a Jewish father, and considers herself Jewish, therefore she is a Jew. Her husband is also a Jew.
I am far more interested in Diane Feinstein’s record than I am in how she identifies herself religiously, ethnically, or culturally. Like you, I do not consider her Jewishness or lack thereof in any way significant or anyone’s business, which is why I ended my remark with “so what?”.
….Diane Feinstein has a Jewish father, and considers herself Jewish, therefore she is a Jew. Her husband is also a Jew….
If Diane Feinstein did not convert to Judaism, she is a Catholic, having been born to a Catholic mother, given a Catholic name, baptized in the Holy Catholic Church and receiving the sacraments of First Communion and Confirmation. It’s possible that she also received the Sacrament of Marriage if she had a Catholic wedding ceremony. If she was a Catholic when she married a Jew, her children are also Catholic!!! The only way she could NOT be Catholic is if she renounced her Catholic faith by converting to Judasim. Where is the proof she made such a conversion?
And furthermore, Shirin, we don’t care what faith Diane considers herself to be. She is a baptized Catholic and has received at least two additional Sacraments. Up and until the time she formally renounces her Catholic faith, SHE IS A CATHOLIC — and so are her children!! You don’t just drop out of Catholocism! Get it?
Centrocita, you are, among other things, assuming that Diane Feinstein has been baptized Catholic, and has received all those sacraments and whatever. You don’t know that, and neither do I.
What matters is not what you and the Catholic church (I assume that is what you mean by “we”) try to dictate to those who have been designated as catholics before they had the ability to think for themselves or make their own decisions. What matters is how a person identifies themselves. The Catholic church does not have the power or the right to decide someone’s religious identity for them, nor do you. Only they have that right. The Catholic church also does not have the right to decide the identity of a person’s children, and you sure as hell don’t have that right.
Now, let’s hear again from you how blondness is only legitimate if it is accompanied by blue eyes.
Shirin, you are really sounding like a horses rear end now. Why don’t you stop with your “knowledge” about the Catholic faith before you make a total fool of yourself. Who are you to say the Catholic church doesn’t have any authority over it’s faithful?
The Catholic church has every right to require the children of a Catholic to be raised Catholic if the Catholic marries outside the faith. First and foremost, the Catholic would be advised NOT to marry a Jew. But if all attempts at dissuason failed, before the marriage takes place, the Catholic is required to sign an affidavit to such effect. If ultimately, after the birth of children, the Catholic renegs on the agreement, the Catholic can be denied the sacraments, denied a Catholic burial and possibly even be ex-communicated from the church.
And yes, I’m certain that Diane Feinstein was most certainly baptized Catholic and received additional sacraments because her MOTHER was the Catholic. In 1933 in the United States, there is NO way, Diane could have been recognized as a Jew because she did not have a Jewish mother.
“Who are you to say the Catholic church doesn’t have any authority over it’s faithful?”
No, dear, I am saying the Catholic church does not have any authority over those who choose not to believe in or practice the Catholic religion. I am saying that is the case even for those who were given “Catholic” names by the Catholic church before they were sentient beings, let alone able to make their own decisions. I am saying that is the case even for those who went through communion as children before they were old enough to really understand what they were doing, let alone make their own decisions. I am saying that is the case even for those who were married in the Catholic church. I am saying that is the case no matter how many sacraments they have received.
What I am saying, dear Centrocita, is that the Catholic church has no authority over anyone who does not grant the Catholic church that authority. What I am saying is that this is no longer the Middle Ages, and the Catholic church cannot force a person to be a Catholic, or to accept the authority of the Catholic church. I am saying that wether or not to be Catholic, or to raise one’s children Catholic, is up to the individual person, no matter how many sacraments they have received in the past.
Oh - and your insistence that if someone’s mother is a Catholic it automatically means they have received X number of sacraments is contradicted over and over and over again by reality. This would be particularly true of marriage, which usually takes place after one is an adult and is not required to yield to the dictates of one’s parents.
It doesn’t require any great knowledge about the Catholic faith to know these things, it only requires a tiny bit of common sense, and an understanding of how the world actually works.
And finally, Centrocita, “recognized” as a Jew by whom? What you do not seem to have grasped is that there are many factors that determine whether someone is a Jew or not, of which religion is only one, and a minor one at that. Jewishness is defined by many other things than religion, of which the most important one is ancestry plus self-identification. Diane Feinstein certainly would have been recognized as a Jew in 1933 by the Nazis!
Shirin, your pompous Jewish rear end apparently doesn’t know or just refuses to accept that Catholicism, formerly paganism, IS also the cultural identity, ethnity and religion of 90% of Italians in Italy and around the world.
Furthermore, a Catholic child does not automatically receive the sacraments because the mother is a Catholic. The Catholic mother must present the child to the church and do the required amount of Catholic parenting so that the child is ELIGIBLE to receive the Sacraments beginning with Baptism. If Diane Feinstein’s mother did not convert to Judaism upon marrige to a Jew after being advised by her priest NOT to marry a Jew, then she would have been even more attentive to her duties as a Catholic mother and made sure her child received the Sacraments.
How interesting that you assume I am Jewish simply because I am able to discuss the various criteria by which people are identified as Jews!
I am not going to argue with you about Italians, although I WILL ask a couple of Italian-American colleagues whether they consider Catholicism to be their ethnicity and their culture. I DO happen to have known in my life quite a few people who are Catholics or who have a Catholic background, including one relative-by-marriage, and his family with whom I am quite close, and with whom I have attended church services. The people I have known come from a wide variety of nationalities, ethnicities, and cultures. Many of them are from the Middle East. Most of the Catholics I have known would disagree that Catholicism is their ethnicity or their culture.
Once again, you presume to know things about Diane Feinstein’s mother’s mindset and behaviour that you have no way of knowing. You are assuming things, nothing more. But at least you concede that having a Catholic mother does not guarantee that a child will be baptized, and all the rest.
….But at least you concede that having a Catholic mother does not guarantee that a child will be baptized, and all the rest….
No, I don’t concede that at all. Since you don’t seem to get it, Shirin, here is the bottom line again. If Diane Feinstein’s mother did not convert to Judaism when she married a Jewish man, her child, born in 1933 in the USA, was NOT Jewish because the mother was not a Jew. Therefore, a Catholic baby would have been given the Catholic sacrament of Baptism as there would have been no Jewish rites available for a child born into such circumstances at the time. Do you really believe that the child of a Jewish father and a Catholic mother would just be left dangling as an agnostic? Please, get real.
I am not the one who does not get it.
1. Whether or not Diane Feinstein’s mother converted to Judaism is completely irrelevant. She would have been baptized in the Catholic faith only if her parents chose to have her baptized in the Catholic faith, and irrespective of whether her mother converted or did not convert to Judaism.
2. The absence of Jewish rites does not guarantee the presence of Catholic rites, regardless of the religious affiliation/background of either parent.
3. Diane Feinstein is Jewish irrespective of the number of Catholic sacraments she may have received as a child if one or more of the following is the case: a) she believes in and practices Judaism, b) any part of her family background is Jewish and she defines herself as a Jew.
There are lots and lots and lots and lots of Catholics and Jews who marry non-Catholics or non-Jews, and who for various reasons do not feel compelled to raise their children in either faith. Religion may just not be all that important to them, or they may consider that their children should be exposed to choices, and allowed to decide for themselves when they are able to.
PS Agnosticism is not the failure to receive some form of religious rites. It is a belief that the existence or non-existence of god is unknown and unknowable. Not everyone considers agnosticism as “dangling”. Some people, including some believers, consider agnosticism a reasonable logical position.
….1. Whether or not Diane Feinstein’s mother converted to Judaism is completely irrelevant. She would have been baptized in the Catholic faith only if her parents chose to have her baptized in the Catholic faith, and irrespective of whether her mother converted or did not convert to Judaism….
Sorry, Shirin, but there is no “irrespective” whatsoever about this additional erroneous statement of yours. There is NO way on EARTH that a Jewish father and a Jewish mother (by conversion) could have their child baptized in the Catholic church. NO WAY! COME HELL OR HIGH WATER. I THINK YOU’RE MAKING THIS UP AS YOU GO ALONG. REMEMBER, SHIRIN, YOU ARE TALKING TO A CATHOLIC WHO RECEIVED 12 YEARS OF EDUCATION IN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.
Also Shirin. So now you’re saying that the Jews even have the right to have their children baptized in the Catholic church. That’s a real good one, Shirin. I bet the Pope would find this especially interesting.
…..I am not going to argue with you about Italians, although I WILL ask a couple of Italian-American colleagues whether they consider Catholicism to be their ethnicity and their culture…..
Be my guest. Please do ask them. And while you’re at it, also ask them if they went to work on Thursday, November 1, the day after Holloween. Here in Italy, it was a major Catholic (formerly Pagan) holiday called All Soul’s Day and everything was closed up tighter than a drum. You couldn’t even buy a loaf of bread anywhere.
“There is NO way on EARTH that a Jewish father and a Jewish mother (by conversion) could have their child baptized in the Catholic church.”
Another fun non sequitur, though this one is not quite as good as your Scottish Jews in kilts were.
“So now you’re saying that the Jews even have the right to have their children baptized in the Catholic church.”
And now you are resorting to attributing to me ridiculous statements that I never made in order to make me wrong - a sure sign of desperation. Of course, I have never said any such thing, nor would I say anything that is on its face so completely absurd. Of course Jews do not have the right to have their children baptized in the Catholic church, and I cannot imagine why any Jew would want that any more than a Catholic couple would want a bris or a bar mitzva for their sons.
“..ask them if they went to work on Thursday, November 1, the day after Holloween.”
I don’t have to ask them that because I saw them at work that day, all day.
“Here in Italy, it was a major Catholic (formerly Pagan) holiday called All Soul’s Day and everything was closed up tighter than a drum. You couldn’t even buy a loaf of bread anywhere.”
All it proves is that in Italy All Soul’s Day is a national holiday. It does absolutely nothing for your claim that 90% of Catholics worldwide consider Catholicism an ethnicity and a culture.
Centrocita, you cannot equate Catholicness and Jewishness in that way. Catholic is a RELIGIOUS designation. Jewish can be a religious designation, and it is also an ethnic, cultural, family-background/self-definition designation. A person is Jewish based on meeting any one or more of those criteria whether or not he believes in and practices Judaism.
A person who does not believes in or practice Catholicism is not in any real sense a Catholic simply because they were given a “Catholic” name before they were even sentient (and since when is Diane, which, in fact, comes from Roman polytheism, not Christianity, a strictly “Catholic” name? I think that would come as quite a surprise to the Dianes I have known who have no connection with Catholicism). They are also not in any real sense a Catholic simply because they were baptised in the Catholic church before they were old enough to make their own decisions. A person is Catholic who believes in and practices the Catholic religion.
The difference between a religious choice and an accident of birth ought to be clear.
Well then, the Jews in Scotland sure had ME fooled. Silly me. I thought they were Scottish — particularly when they were wearing those tartan kilts.
What on EARTH does one’s nationality, Scottish or otherwise, have to do with whether one is either Catholic or Jewish? Are you suggesting that a person cannot be both Scottish and Jewish? Or that a person cannot be Jewish and wear a tartan kilt? What, exactly, is your point here?
Well, Shirin you say that being a Jew is all about ethnicity, culture, and family background, in addition to religion. You did not mention one word about nationality. But now, all of a sudden, you’re including nationality! My, arn’t we special!
No, I said nothing about nationality in connection with Jewishness. You are the one who strangely introduced the non sequitur of Scottish Jews wearing kilts, and I was trying to figure out what on earth the connection could be in your mind.
Hi all… I want to link a couple of very good articles on the question of torture, as well as the senators indiffernce to the importance of the issue. PM Carpenter has an lots to say, and not just on the issue of torture. He also speaks of the hell that the enablers should see. This is from it: –http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2007/11/our-co-reigning.html
And from Booman Tribune: also know that that is not the primary problem with Mike Mukasey. When he was questioned about the legality of violating the FISA law, Mukasey suggested that the president could ignore the law: “The president doesn’t stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution.” Leahy responded, “I see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.” No matter…they moved on.
And it only got better:
…when asked about contempt charges against witnesses who refuse to respond to congressional subpoenas, Mukasey said he would refuse to follow the statute that requires a U.S. attorney to refer contempt citations to a grand jury.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/11/3/111625/873
I will post more later on another issue, close to my heart. So much sad news today. Heard Constitution has been suspended in Pakistan, and military take over… And not to mention the natural disaters in Mexico, and other areas. Volcanic eruptions, so much pain and suffering. And our ‘leaders’ sit on their fat butts and pick their noses… Pray for sanity to return to our world.
>
Larry….
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have asked , in several comments, why you remain a Republican….and you plainly answered my question. The Republicans are vile, evil, anti-American bastards….And the Democrats are effete, spineless collaborators. The country is in sad shape, and none of the candidates for ‘08 offers what we need. (Of course… if there even is an 11/08 election.) I won’t be associated with either of their parties.
While I’m not in favor of limiting the number of terms for Members of Congress, I’d like to see each Member, in every session of Congress, be willing to put everything on the line. I don’t mean that posturing for selfish reasons (going out in a blaze of glory) is acceptable. I don’t mean that there should never be any compromising. If a particular vote or position is meant to obtain the best possible result, but is subject to being misunderstood, let the Member of Congress explain in detail the reasoning behind the vote or position; I don’t know why any Member would not deep a diary and document reasons for particular votes.
Getting voted out due to taking a principled position would not be the worst thing in the world. Those who take the oath of office seriously receive respect, and set a good example. I can’t remember when there have been more opportunities to put it all on the line.
Um, “Shirer.”
On the sonderkommandos dustup, I’m reminded that I used to work for a guy who always referred to the denizens of the Netherlands as “those fucking Nazi collaborators”.
About three years into my employment, I fnally said it: You do realize I’m Dutch, of course.
“…putting their blessing on a man so clueless that he does not know that a practice that mimics drowning is torture.”
He does know, he just can’t say it because that would put his prospective future boss in legal jeopardy. He’s said that if waterboarding were torture, it would be unconstitutional. But he has to stop there, because he knows that Bush has authorized waterboarding. To admit it is torture would mean advocating the president’s impeachment. This public spectacle of moral evasion is shameful and it has stained Mukasey, McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others. Indeed it has stained all of us, because although we like to complain, we are still letting it happen, and our complacency is what they are counting on.
Word is that Feinstein’s husband makes money with defense contracts. Which leads me to suspect that money is the root of all collaboration with evil.
Or are there that many Democrats afraid of their secrets being revealed they will roll over for W? Widespread wiretapping goes beyond the 1972 criminal act of bugging Demo headquarters in the Watergate Hotel.
A long time ago I discovered that no politician will perfectly represent my attitudes. Which means I will always have to choose the lesser of two evils.
There is no question in my mind that Diane Feinstein’s positions are heavily influenced by her husband’s (and her) financial and career interests among other things.
As I said a few days ago, I think of her as “Lieberman lite”. We have learned from bitter experience that when it comes to anything even remotely connected to the Middle East, once she takes a position it is a waste of time to try to influence her with facts or reality. We have also learned that she is very much in the pocket of AIPAC.
Don’t send back your father’s medals from WWII.
There are still some things about this country worth fighting for.
Look at those medals, and remember.
It’s just increasingly the government isn’t one of them, and it appears that we will have to fight the people who’ve taken over the government to preserve it.
Btw
Senator Russ Feingold announced:
I will not support Mr. Mukasey’s nomination.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/3/183754/078
“kapo” is the term i’m more familiar with.
how does difi live with the shame?
if this were a parallel universe and it was jews who were being waterboarded, would she still support this nomineee?
[...] Yesterday is dead and gone. What will we wake up to tomorrow? How is what was so wrong yesterday, by some call to necessity, ever deemed right today? [...]