Senator McCain, Meet General Casey
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 January 24, 2008 at 11:54 PM in Current Affairs
Want further proof that John McCain is living in an alternate universe when it comes to Iraq? Check out this exchange on Iraq in tonight’s debate:
Did you catch McCain’s key quip? “I know of no military leader, including General Petraeus, who says we can’t sustain our effort in Iraq.” Oh really?
Well, maybe Senator McCain was taking a nap last month, but Army Chief of Staff, General Casey disagrees. The Christian Science Monitor’s Gordon Lubold reported the following last Christmas Eve:
“We’re deploying at unsustainable rates,” General Casey said three weeks ago during remarks to an audience at the Brookings Institution in Washington. The Army agreed to a buildup of troops a year ago with the understanding that it was temporary, he said. “We can’t sustain that. We have to come off of that, and we’re working that very hard.”
In fact, Casey is not alone. Lubold also wrote:
While there is reasonable consensus that a significant drawdown must occur to relieve the Army – from Gates to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the service chiefs and many combatant commanders – Petraeus may not see things the same way. An expert in counterinsurgency, Petraeus believes such campaigns can last a decade or more if done right. While he is mindful of the strains on the force, he is considered to be more focused on maintaining the security momentum there, analysts say.
So what did media stars Tim Russert and Brian Williams do? Nothing. They did a fair impression of a bobble head doll. Each happily nodding along as McCain spun his fantasy. Not one person tonight dared challenge John McCain on this point–something that was demonstrably false–even in the post-debate wrap up. Although McCain was a brave Navy pilot, it is equally clear he is now an addled old man who lacks the mental acuity to be a competent President. But with our “crack” TV media stars on patrol, they’ll just humor him and let him skate until he actually gets the job and can do some real damage. And at that point the joke will be on us. Thank God (irony intended) for the Christian Science Monitor. Too bad more folks don’t read it. Perhaps McCain might like a subscription.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
McCain says Hillary would surrender.
Classic propaganda ploy. Projectionism. Place weakness in argument as fault of opponent, so they have to answer the charge instead of you.
Never mind that McCain actually, you know, surrendered.
I’m curious as to how McCain would handle the war, the middle east.
Like Bush and Cheney?
Does he have a plan, an integrative plan, that would restore some order and diplomatic semblance to the middle east?
How will he take CONTROL of the situation, or is this it, rather than action, he like Bush, will balme others, expecting to be rescued every six months, by Congress?
Seems to me Republicans can’t get the job done.
Or maybe we should just phone AEI, and ask for their help…
Oh, wait.
“Does he have a plan, an integrative plan…?”
Sure he does! Haven’t you heard his plan? It goes like this: Bombombomb, bombomb Eyeran
A result of too much waterboarding.
A result of too much water boarding.
Brutal take on that, Hope. It is pretty sorry of him to surrender the moral high ground he once had, having himself been kept alive under the banner of Geneva.
Hillary could point that out to him the next time they meet.
MSNBC does have a comment line open after those debates, take a gander at my take on the evening:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?boardid=780&threadid=539620&BoardsParam=HIPDelay%3d1%26PostID%3d14337536
Don’t underestimate the power of appealing to Clinton haters in the GOP. There are many right-wingers who have deep, visceral hatred of all things Clinton that is similar to the entrenched hatred of W on the left. The GOPs forte is capitalizing on hate, prejudice, racism, religiosity, etc as you well know.There’s a lot of vote to gained by unhinged Clinton hating.
McCain is simply following an old formula: if you want to be President, find out who makes and breaks Presidents. Then just tell those people what they want to hear no matter how nonsensical it may be.
The Iron Triangle wants to hear that War is always the answer, that war is permanently sustainable. AIPAC wants to hear that Israel is always right and be promised that the USA will always either comply with or willfully overlook anything Israel does.
So McCain just tells them that, and the bobble-heads nod along like the chorus in a Greek tragedy.
But the Clinton haters have been hurt by Bush’s policies, too.
I see a tremendous amount of handicapping, and polling, but no one really speaking of the consequence of political hubris, the “quiet desperation” Americans are feeling, what we’re facing as a result of Bush’s, and Congress’ grave mismanagement.
And when the ivy league jethro’s respond, they’re condescending, because, you know, they’re smarter, and they have POLL results.
Bush and Cheney are the worst presidential team, ever, and yesterday, Pelosi, a democrat, deferred to them, again, regarding the economic stimulus package.
Do you think Americans dont understand WHY we’re in this economic mess, having to do with the supply side fairy tale, tax cuts and spending?
Pelosi and Reid make Romney look good, and I’m not being sarcastic.
I guess the point I was trying to make was Bill Clinton gets it, and most Americans know Bill Clinton gets it, and hopefully, Hillary does, too.
And so does Edwards, but people can’t hear him, yet.
Always kind of thought McCain was a decent fellow. Wouldn’t vote for him but felt he’s make an OK President.
No longer. Fuck him throwing that phony bullshit out there like that.
Maybe we should be glad he did. Sort of revealed the fear they have of Senator Clinton. And continuing the occupation of Iraq is, in my opinion, a losing platform.
Didn’t his “bombombomb, bombomb Eyeran” moment do the trick for you? You had to wait for something minor like this to decide he wasn’t worthy?
I will never understand this political way of thinking - never. In my world anyone who dances around singing about bombing people is not a viable candidate for president. Period. End of subject. Next topic, please.
Exactly. McInsane. Then. Now. Always.
And if not, his “be there for 100, 1000, 10,000 years” bilge would surely convince even the most uninformed.
I suppose he thinks he’s somehow “acting presidential” when he blathers provocatively. Apparently, using Chimpsky as a bad example, he’ll say anything that comes to his addled little mind.
Mr. Murder, your point regarding McCain surrendering the high ground is well put. Perhaps he no longer has the mental capacity to comprehend his descent into madness. He’s thin skinned and lacks empathy.
When Bush kissed him on his head it sucked all the ability to think. Bush is a brain bug? McCain is still out there playing wack a mole.
LOOOOOOOOLOLOL!’
Bush as a brain-sucking bug. Nice image. Too bad when he sucks the brain out he does not manage to transfer it into his own head!
More like a dung beetle…
Well, for sure he has SFB, so you might be correct.
“An expert in counterinsurgency, Petraeus believes such campaigns can last a decade or more if done right.”
And can one conclude that it can be finished a lot sooner if done wrong? If so, then let’s do it wrong and end it sooner, OK?
PS If Petraeus is such an expert in counterinsurgency, would the first step not be to understand what it is the “insurgents” are “insurging” against? Has it occurred at all to Petraeus and the other brilliant “counterinsurgency experts” that what they call the “insurgency” is almost entirely against the United States’ presence in Iraq, and that therefore the easiest, quickest, and least bloody way to end it is to remove the reason for it?
His expertise was Col, Nagl.
Nagl actually appeared on the Jon stewart show last fall and carried himself quite well.
Nagl is leaving the military for a job in private industry.
Petraeus put his name on the counter-insurgency manual, not so much for the contents.
Another perfumed prince in a long line of perfumed princes.
Yes, I knew that Petraeus did not actually write that manual.
But based on my observations, none of the “counterinsurgency experts” appear interested in looking seriously at what the so-called “insurgency” is about. If they did that, then they would know the quickest, most effective, and least bloody and destructive way of ending it. But that would not only defeat the whole purpose of the aggression on Iraq in the first place, it would take all the fun out of conterinsurgency work.
Well now if you get too involved in what the insurgents are insurgenting about, you lose sight of the fact that the insurgents are sitting overtop of something that needs stealing “for the good of the peoples.”
Lots of oil under them, and the only reliable source of water in the middle east. Those pesky Tigris and Euphrates river flows. Not to mention the dates, which we can’t mention because the date groves are going the way of Palestinian olive groves, the oranges and pomegranets, which are now providing foilage cover for a fine crop of harvestable poppies, soon to be feeding the needs of the counter-insurgents. See it all fits together nicely. Everything is going according to plan.
And given the counter-insurgent’s necessity to recruit bangers and skinheads and psychopaths to fill the gaping maw of recruitment falloff soon the army will re-learn another Vietnam lesson, drug use will spread through the volunteer military in Iraq just as quickly as it spread through the slave military used in Vietnam.
They haven’t even TRIED an intelligent diplomatic approach, their whole effort has consisted of intimidation, and ersatz chaos, which they do not understand.
Rather than speaking of an eternity in Iraq, let’s hold out opinions until SMART people examine the issue.
You’re speaking of BUSH and CHENEY, not competent leaders with competent underlings.
Remember?
Though the situations were different, Gen Clark, under Clinton, was able to being SOME order to Kosovo.
With all due respect, do you want to win, or are you just trying to show people you have big balls?
Guess what Bush and Cheney do?
There is no comparison between the operations in Kosovo and Iraq except that both destroyed a lot of infrastructure and killed a lot of people.
Look, everyone likes to make this “insurgency” (sic) think much more complicated than it is. What people are so fond of calling “the insurgency” (sic) is first and foremost resistance against the forced presence of a foreign power that had no right to go there in the first place, and has no right to stay. As long as the Americans remain there, the “insurgency” (sic) will continue, sometimes in one way, sometimes in another, sometimes at a low level, sometimes at a higher level. Therefore, the best way to stop the “insurgency” is to leave.
But of course, the people in the U.S. government who have the power to remove the cause of the “insurgency” (sic) don’t WANT to leave. They want to stay in Iraq forever, and they want to figure out how to get the Iraqis to leave them alone while they turn Iraq into a nice, compliant, useful client state for the United States. And so, instead of doing the one thing that will stop the “insurgency” (sic), they do one thing after another that is not only guaranteed to make it continue, but to make it worse and worse and worse.
And there is not a single viable candidate out there who will not continue it until finally they are forced to withdraw completely.
Sigh!
Do you know, the date palm used to be such a powerful symbol of Iraq.
Wasn’t it on the Iraqi Flag?
Yes I know, that is why I used it as an example.
And I know that the date palm groves have been bombed to shreds and wood dust.
A large part of “counter-insurgency” is destroying the symbolic. Museums, historical archieves, monuments, anything that gives meaning and context to the context of an insurgency is to be destroyed.
Yes I know, it is how it was done in Malaysia, Vietnam, Timor, Somalia, Lebanon, Palestine and now Iraq.
Either accept the boot in your face forever or watch everything that had meaning go away — and you still get the boot in the face.
Yes I know.
Yes, and just as the Israelis have done to the Palestinians, date groves and fruit orchards have been bulldozed as a means of punishing people for not telling the occupying forces what they wanted to hear - a clear war crime.
In the early months of the occupation, Robert Fisk, who was there at the time, wrote a very provocative piece about the type of destruction you are referring to, including the U.S. bombing, as well as the systematic gutting of all the civil ministries, and the records contained in them. He noted that he had watched busloads of men pull up to ministries, enter, and shortly thereafter he would see flames inside the building, the men would exit, and ride out of town in the same direction. He said the buses were always the same colour and configuration - yellow, as I recall. He asked some very pointed questions, as to the purpose for destroying the history, the monuments, the civil structure of a country. I will see if I can locate that piece.
Rania Masri put it exactly right when she recommended that when you hear the word reconstruction in reference to Iraq, you should translate that to “deconstruction and transformation”. She put into very clear words the sense that I and many others had of what “reconstruction” was really about.
Read any history of Sherman’s march to the sea, or Sheridan’s march through the Shenandoah valley. The brilliance of the American military is that it has learned nothing since 1864 and forgotten everything but 1864.
Shiring - They don’t care about “Why”, they just care about “How”.
Hope, if they really 1) understood this thing they call the “insurgency”, and 2) wanted to end it with minimum bloodshed and destruction, then the very first question they would ask themselves is “why”, or “against what”, and shape their solution to the answer. But it’s not really about ending the “insurgency” (what is going on in Iraq is not an insurgency, but I will let that go for the moment), it is about forcing the will of the imperial power on the people they wish to subjugate. It is about “pacifying” Iraqis and turning them into a subject people. Therefore, the brilliant “expert” Petraeus says if done “right” it can take ten years. Well, no one has succeeded at it so far in history, so let him devote the next ten years of his life to it, and at the end of that time he will not find himself farther along the road to success.
How long did the British manage to hold onto Iraq before they were finally forced to give it up? And so much has changed since then that is not in favour of unwelcome imperial ventures. The U.S. will be defeated in Iraq, if not sooner, then later. The biggest question is how much devastation they will succeed in inflicting on the country and its society before they are forced to give up.
“McCain says Hillary would surrender.”
I wish with everything in my being that it were true that Hillary would surrender. Unfortunately, nothing in Hillary’s announced plans for Iraq suggests surrender. On the contrary, it suggests that she is hoping to keep a significant, if reduced, controlling presence in Iraq, including some combat forces.
If I believed Hillary would surrender, I would be happy to vote for her.
There’s a new stimulus package out there…
Three hundred bucks, in June or July…
it’s like throwing cake over the Bastille wall.
Anything to placate the hungry, angry mobs.
The punch line of the joke writes itself from the policy.
Bush’s package is too small.
I am encouraging everyone I know to spend their big “stimulus” in a foreign country on goods made in that country.
What idiot really believes giving people a few hundred dollars of their own money back is going to save the economy?
>>> Bush’s package is too small.
Well, THAT would explain a LOT!!!!!! LOL!!!!
Oh put a sock in it. Mission Accomplished.
Are you referring to his head his brain or some other part of his body?
I am referring to his Manly Man stride across the deck of the Aircraft carrier with his augmented package being flaunted by the cut of his parachute straps.
That was from the diaper getting bunched up. Does anybody know how much jet time he actually in the reserves? Even in my flight sim landing on a deck is insane, never mind riding shotgun.
Will the senile Commander-in-Chief be sending our dwindling ranks of troops back for their 8th or 9th tours there?
I almost jumped at the tv when McCain said Hillary would surrender. How dare they. Do you think if Russert had asked a Democrat the question he asked McCain about his saying he doesn’t know that much about the economy he would have let that answer ride? I don’t think so. I’m getting pretty sick of this whole politcal baloney and the candidates are just getting into gear.
Oh, as far as Hillary surrendering, I don’t think surrender is a word I’d use to describe Hillary. She might move the troops to a place where Bin Laden is hiding, which might help us get him. McCain’s argument for staying in Iraq would then be mute.
If Hillary sticks with the plans for Iraq that she has outlined, she will be keeping those permanent bases Bush built in Iraq well populated, and will keep combat troops in the country indefinitely. Where she will send the troops she DOES remove from Iraq, who knows?
And of course, you are assuming that she or anyone else actually knows where bin Laden is hiding.
And by the way, I would like to see bin Laden captured, tried, and sentenced for his crimes, not used as an excuse for all sorts of military adventures. However, “killing or capturing bin Laden” will not change anything. It will not stop Al Qa`eda, and it will not stop the United States from committing their respective crimes.
Shirin writes: If Hillary sticks with the plans for Iraq that she has outlined, she will be keeping those permanent bases Bush built in Iraq well populated, and will keep combat troops in the country indefinitely. Where she will send the troops she DOES remove from Iraq, who knows?
Hillary is on record in opposition to permanent bases in Iraq. Further, you have absolutely no evidence to back up your claim that she intends to keep combat troops in the country indefinitely.
This is not the first time I’ve called you on this, Shirin. Do me a favor: instead of trying to think of a clever way to backpedal out of this, just shut up and read the text of the letter Hillary sent to Bush in November of last year, paying close attention to the phrase “To be clear, attempts to establish permanent bases in Iraq would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region, and I will continue to strongly oppose such efforts.”
Man, some people just won’t be told…
OK, then, where is she going to keep the tens of thousands of troops she will need in Iraq for the general and specific missions she has outlined (some of which will certainly involve combat), and which will last for? Will she leave those extremely well-appointed permanent bases empty and put the troops in tents out in the desert?
And would you like me to list, once again, the specific American military missions she has said will continue indefinitely? Or should I just point out that she has stated explicitly that she plans to continue the United States’ “military as well as political mission” in Iraq for the indefinite future, and let that say it all?
Wow Chris as a Senator what has she done to “oppose such efforts” given that every funding bill she or any of the other spineless traitorous Democrats have given Bush, I’m sure has money in it to continue lining the contractor pockets of Bush’s rich friends. Most of these bases including the Green zone palace have probably have already been built.
So Chris WTF kind of logic is there in saying you oppose something and then voting to fund it time after time?
As far as Hillary goes I will post an article by Cenk Uygar called
The Real Case Against Hillary Clinton
that backs up my fact that she is a spineless Bush backer,which for you and those who probably didn’t read it the first time can read it here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-real-case-against-hil_b_81248.html
In case you are too busy to read the whole thing I will back up my “facts” with a couple of quotes from it
“Yet in her entire time in the Senate she has never led one successful fight against him. She has either lost every legislative battle on Iraq, or worse yet, been complicit.”
AND..
“I understand that leaders are supposed to lead. Yet, I have never seen Senator Clinton lead her fellow Democrats in a successful challenge of President Bush. Never. That’s a pretty awful record.”
So now what do you have to say Chris Hmmmmmm?
Why dont you take your own advice and shut up and get your “facts” straight.
And BTW lay off Shirin… If you spent the rest of your life trying to become as knowledgeable as Shirin is you couldn’t come within a country mile of what she knows AND Shirin is probably the only blogger on NQ that 100% of the time backs up her statements with as “Joe Friday”
in Dragnet used to say, “just the facts mam, just the facts.
Bill writes: Wow Chris as a Senator what has she done to “oppose such efforts” given that every funding bill she or any of the other spineless traitorous Democrats have given Bush, I’m sure has money in it to continue lining the contractor pockets of Bush’s rich friends.
Oh bah-ruther. From the letter she wrote to President Bush:
“As you know, in 2006, Congress explicitly passed a restriction on the use of any funds to establish any military installation or base for the permanent stationing of United States Forces in Iraq. However, the Declaration of Principles that you signed with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki does not explicitly rule out permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.”
Like I said to Shirin, just follow the link and read the damn letter– before running your yap.
Gosh, Chris, you are SO RIGHT! Writing that letter to Bush - conveniently timed just as it was becoming apparent that if she wanted a shot at the nomination she was going to have to change her tune on Iraq - SO overwhelms her entire history regarding Iraq, the use of military violence as a tool of foreign policy, and her stated “withdrawal” plan of continuing indefinitely the U.S. “military and political mission” in Iraq.
How could I have been so foolish?! That letter changes EVERYTHING!
The letter describes a continuing effort, which you’d know if you’d simply read it.
Really, why don’t you just read it? It won’t hurt. You won’t go blind.
I promise.
Look, Shirin: you’re saying that Hillary is largely down, as the kids say, with Dubya’s effort to establish permanent bases in Iraq.
So, she votes for legislation to deny funding for those permanent bases and writes a letter to Bush to remind him that permanent bases are not allowed.
Trying to throw us off track, no doubt.
Do you have any idea how crazy you sound?
No, Chris that is not what I am saying. All I am saying is what is absolutely evident from her own statements. Hillary intends to keep a significant force, including combat forces, in Iraq indefinitely in order to continue pursuing the United States’ “military and political mission” there. George Bush has spent multi-billions of dollars to build a number of enormous extremely well-appointed permanent military bases - bases that resemble and have the typical amenities of American towns - in Iraq. Common sense says that Hillary intends to populate those bases with those troops indefinitely.
WTF does that mean and how does that justify her sitting on her fat ass and continuing to fund the war? Any letter that Bush gets on anything from anybody he just wipes his ass with.
Are you so stupid as to believe that writing a letter to Bush has any clout?
Dude you are living in the same alternative reality that MCcCain and all the rest are. Because when it is all said and done next January and the Repukes still control, the economy is in the tank then I hope you still have a job in your alternate reality.
I think you are a fucking troll and you need to back in your troll cave with all the rest of the stupid fucking Republican trolls.
Yeh I am cursing and don’t give a damn if you or anyone else likes it. You never have anything constructive to say so until you do take this post and shove it up your ass and if Larry reads this and wants to kick me off this blog then so be it.
Your damn “girl’ is not qualified to be President just because she is a woman or a
Clinton. Big Bill though he had his problems will have to coach her every step of the way, and do you really believe he will let her be her own “woman”?
AND finally dude, if you want to deal with the real truth, NONE of the front runners are qualified to be President, and if you Hillary lovers are stupid enough to believe that those of us who are NOT blinded-by-the-all-hillary-all-the-time on this blog, will automatically lockstep behind her after Super Tuesday, then please use your Pay Pal account to put a downpayment on the Brooklyn Bridge.
The only two ppl whether they are qualified or not, who are talking about the REAL issues in this campaign are Dennis Kuncinich and Ron Paul and as of right now (unless Bloomberg gets in the race as an independent) those two candidates, who are real patriotic Americans not just opportunists like all the others, will get my vote.
Furthermore, Bill, you can read about the legislation that Hillary introduced a week after her letter to Bush at her website, here.
Briefly, as the website says:
“The legislation’s aims are two-fold: to forestall the Bush-Cheney administration’s efforts to keep the war going even after it leaves office; and to thwart the Administration’s latest executive power grab.”
Where is she going to put the 50,000 or so troops that she will need to continue pursuing the United States’ “military and political mission” in Iraq, Chris, if not in those permanent bases she is unwilling to fund? Are you seriously suggesting that she will not use them to house her troops, or to store the weapons, the ammunition, the bombs, the attack helicopters, the airplanes, the tanks, the humvees, the APC’s she will need to pursue the United States’ “military mission” in Iraq? Will she refuse her military the use of those brilliantly engineered and perfectly constructed runways for their war planes? Will she deny her troops the homey comfort of going to Burger King, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut for dinner, and the use of those well-equipped gyms, swimming pools, miniature golf courses, and movie theaters that her predecessor built for them?
Where is she going to put the tens of thousands of troops that she will need to keep in Iraq to continue the “military mission”, Chris? Where will she keep all the equipment and supplies they will need while continuing the “military mission”, Chris?
And BTW lay off Shirin… If you spent the rest of your life trying to become as knowledgeable as Shirin is you couldn’t come within a country mile of what she knows AND Shirin is probably the only blogger on NQ that 100% of the time backs up her statements with as “Joe Friday” in Dragnet used to say, “just the facts mam, just the facts.
[sigh]
Then it should present no problem to Shirin to back up with fact her claim that Hillary Clinton supports permanent bases in Iraq, should it?
But she didn’t, did she? And when confronted twice with contrary evidence, she offers no apology, instead restating a tired litany of Hillaryhatred which is well-known to all here.
Look, Bill, sorry, but Shirin has, like most of us, a blind spot. Hers has to do with the Clintons, and I won’t go into why, ’cause we’ve been through that a few times already.
She’s free of course to talk all the doody she wants about ‘em, although its tough to see why, but she can’t realistically expect that a lie will go untrapped.
Nobody can, if I have anything to say about it.
“it should present no problem to Shirin to back up with fact her claim that Hillary Clinton supports permanent bases in Iraq”
Sigh!
As usual, you have made use of your favourite dishonest debate technique and misrepresented my position just enough to serve your purpose. In so doing you have also revealed the weakness - or rather nonexistence - of your argument.
What I have said is that she will be keeping those permanent bases well populated with American troops for the foreseeable future. I realize this might be too nuanced for you, but that is not at all the same thing as saying she supports permanent bases. She may or may not support them, but unless she does a magical turnaround and decides to make a full withdrawal (or at least the level of withdrawal Edwards has described, leaving only 3500-5000 troops), she WILL be using those permanent bases quite fully, and with no end in sight.
But I think you understand that very well, actually. Your problem is that you cannot effectively refute what I have said, and you are unwilling to admit that, so you make up something you think you CAN refute. This is an age-old favourite technique used widely - univerally actually - by the Israel uber alles crowd, whom I have been debating quite effectively for more decades than I care to admit. It is primitive, it is crude, it is a clear sign of desperation, and they have never stopped trying to use it because they don’t have a leg to stand on and if they debate honestly, they will lose every time.
I have not claimed that Hillary “supports bases in Iraq”. I don’t know whether she supports them or not, though I do know she has said she does not. What I HAVE suggested is that, while she might not “support bases in Iraq”, she has made it clear that she intends to continue indefinitely the United States’ “military and political mission” there. In addition, she has spelled out quite specifically what that “military mission” will consist of. Taking her statements in their totality, and applying a bit of logic, it becomes clear that the “military mission” is likely to require somewhere in the vicinity of 50,000 troops stationed in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
So, Chris, where will she house those tens of thousands of troops if not in those extremely well-appointed, very expensive permanent military bases that are conveniently sitting there now, and are designed to accommodate just about the number of troops she will need to continue the “military mission” in Iraq? Will she leave the bases empty and put the troops in tents out in the desert? I doubt it. Will she spend yet more money building new, “temporary” bases and leave the beautifully appointed, multi-billion-dollar bases empty? I doubt it. It wouldn’t make sense, would it? Therefore, as long as she will keep tens of thousands of troops to continue the “military and political mission” in Iraq, she will be keeping those permanent bases populated, no matter whether she says she supports permanent bases in Iraq or not.
Just do the logic, Chris. Just do the logic.
“Man, some people just won’t be told…”
I can see how much it troubles you that “some people” insist on thinking and speaking for themselves, no matter how many times YOU try to tell them what to think and say.
From Bill Keyes: Are you so stupid as to believe that writing a letter to Bush has any clout?
Bush read a letter? That’s seriously funny.
In the immortal would of the Texas Governor Anne:
If we are dumb enough to vote for this “out of his fucking mind” candidate, we deserve the hell we will inherit. I mean really, this mans head is full of mashed potatoes. Just because he keeps repeating his own propaganda, doesn’t make it so. We’ve had 7 years of this ALICE IN WONDERLAND Bull shit and i would HOPE we are wiser now., but the fact he is rising in the polls doesn’t give me much hope. I REALLY used to like him, BEFORE someone’s lobby (AIPAC or military industrial complex) got to him..He is no longer doing America’s bidding…if over 70% of the population disagrees with him and his poll numbers are rising, I smell a rat..
Ron Paul is the ONLY republican up there willing to tell us the truth, Guliani, McCain are just pulling general facts out of thin air and repeating them as if they apply to the whole Iraqi theater.
I would say to McCain, you go live in Iraq bozo!!! Your a military man…and besides, you’ve told us how safe it is.. You go shopping in their bazaar’s !!! I DARE you to John.
I didn’t thinks so…
I used to know every inch and nearly every shop in the Shorja Suq, and I wouldn’t go near the place now no matter WHAT kind of bargains I could find there. If McCain wants to go shopping in his flak jacket and helmet accompanied by an armed platoon with attack helicopters hovering over his head, he can be my guest. He and his kind have ruined Iraq for the foreseeable future.
McCain = still insane.
Sort of OT, but Holy moley, Larry, I have to remark on this:
Everybody begs and pleads for someone in the forces to speak out - to give us some truth - while they’re actually IN the forces. If they’re out, they’re only General Dilweed, RETIRED, and treated like the “disgruntled former employee” with no cred.
Yet, here are Gates, Mullen, Casey, still in their positions of power AND telling the truth, and STILL NOTHING HAPPENS! They’re marginalized anyway, like Soviet non-persons.
“Not one person tonight dared challenge John McCain on this point”
See you and raise you one:
“Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason”
McCain mystifies me. Whereas a yuppie like Obama who has never been in uniform can have dewy-eyed visions of the world, McCain knows that sometimes the dragon wins —- this had to be impressed upon him as he was dangling from that chute over Truc Bach Lake.
My guess is that he is playing to the Republican electoral core with political bullshit. When he gets elected he’ll send his Kissinger to Paris.
When he gets elected….If he gets elected……
Intrade now has Clinton favored over McCain by better than 2:1.
John “my friends” McCain seems to have learned the wrong lesson about Vietnam. Even though the United States Armed Forces never lost a battle, the war was lost. The Saigon government was corrupt and inefective. ARVIN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) was a joke. Without U.S. support, they were as effective as a nursery school fighting a Roman Legion. Saigon never learned how to mobilize the political support of its own people.
After all this time, I am dubious as the whether Baghdad has an army. There is no effort to reconcile Sunni and Shi’ites. Bush managed to eliminate the buffer between Shi’ite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan. Iran is Farsi, not arab. (Bush should have read a book about the balance of power.) Eventually Iraq is going to have to defend itself, regardless of how many decades we spend there. As for the surge, most of Baghdad has been purged of mixed neighborhoods, so the violence would be reduced. Jordan and Syria have one big refugee problem. What a legacy for Bush! And now he is going to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem before he leaves office. His visit to Jerusalem must have activated his Messiah Complex.
On a tangent here, I noticed that yesterday the Republican senators backstabbed the democrats and Harry Reid just as the dems were about to do the requisite el foldo on FISA and warrantless wiretapping. The reasons given by the brilliant folks were that Bush wants to be able to excoriate the dem senate and democrats in general in the SOTU as being WEAK ON TERRA. I accept that as a partial explanation. Try this on for a fuller one. Expectations now are that it will be Hillary vs McCain. Two senators, both well known to the senate brethern and cisterns as vindictive and conniving people. McCain has an especially nasty reputation for being unable to control his temper and for having a long memory for slights. I suspect that the republican senators are having huge doubts about allowing either Hillary or McCain to be able to sic the telecom companies upon whatever target of current ire they might wish for the next 8 years without any checks and balances at all. Likewise it is my suspicion that the Democratic senators, understanding that a democratic takeover is moving up the probability scale would like to have exactly those powers available to whichever of the Dems takes the whitehouse.