Page 16 | national security

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | national security

VEEPSTAKES: The Case for Joe Biden

By Taylor Marsh on 14 August 2008

Biden’s views on a new Pakistan policy illustrates yet again he can handle the job of secretary of state. But considering other challenges our nominee faces, Biden’s expertise convinced me a long time ago that he’s the
man who can most help Obama when it comes to the nominee’s unknown quantity, which has some European leaders nervous, as reported in the Washington Post. Biden as Obama’s
vice president quiets nerves immediately, because leaders around the world know him. He’s proven. Biden’s recent op-ed in the Financial
Times on the Russia – Georgia conflict further points out Obama could have no steadier
hand by his side than Joseph Biden. Russian
must stand down:

… By acting disproportionately with a full scale attack on Georgia and
seeking the ouster of Georgia’s democratically elected President Mikheil
Saakashvili, Moscow is jeopardising its standing in Europe and the broader
international community â€“ and risking very real practical and political
consequences.
The historic precedents in this case should trouble the Kremlin. The Red
Army’s invasion of Hungary in 1956 succeeded in putting down an anti-Soviet
rebellion, but simultaneously unmasked the brutality of the Soviet regime
and tarnished Moscow’s reputation around the world. Similar consequences
followed Soviet interventions in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. If Russia
continues to overreach in Georgia, it might earn a small tactical victory.
But it will do so at the expense of a monumental strategic defeat.
For years, Russian leaders have had a constant refrain with their American
counterparts. Russia, we were told, wanted two things: international respect
and to be treated as an equal by the United States. However, its leaders have
evidenced few qualms about denying such treatment to nearby countries….

Biden goes on to make the case, not only that Russia is endangering their WTO
possibilities (partially because of the Jackson-Vanik amendment that he mentions in his op-ed), but risks the Olympics in
2014.

For Moscow, the most obvious casualty of the fighting could be the Sochi
Winter Olympics in 2014 â€“ supposedly the crown jewel in the country’s
campaign to reinvent itself. Sochi is only a few miles from the border with
Georgia’s other breakaway region of Abkhazia. Regardless of any political
consequences, if fighting spreads, it could drive up insurance rates for the
games to the point that it becomes prohibitively expensive to hold the Olympics
in the region at all.

He then calls on Russia to stand down, for the country’s own sake: The
only hope for preventing this crisis from becoming a calamity for Russia’s
relationship with the west is for Moscow to immediately ceasefire, pull back
its forces and agree to negotiations brokered by the international community
â€“ all steps that the Georgian government has agreed to. If the fighting
continues, this moment could emerge as a turning point in the west’s relationship
with Moscow, and deny Russia the international standing it seeks.

Can Tim Kaine offer this analysis? Can Evan Bayh? Not without conjuring up his Joe Lieberman, neocon committee roots. As for Kathleen Sebelius,
she is a non-starter for most Hillary supporters and breaks the one rule above
all for vice presidential choices: do no harm. She would shatter the Clintonites
to the four winds, as most would dig in and refuse to work or vote for Obama,
with this happening upon her announcement and before we even get into what she
offers to the ticket. Clintonites simply wouldn’t care. As for the
latest buzz, John Kerry, no one can doubt he’s been out front fighting for
Obama, giving what he didn’t last year. But he brings a whole lot of baggage with him, too, which makes him the absolute wrong choice. So, if it’s not going to be Hillary Clinton… though I still hold out hope.

John Nichols of The
Nation wrote on Biden as well recently. On just about every point we
agree.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton’s Internet Director Challenges Bloggers to Cover Obama Campaign Tactics

By Taylor Marsh on 16 March 2008

Well, this is a first.

Peter Daou is Clinton’s Internet director. I just found out that he has sent out an email to a group of bloggers with a challenge: “I challenge my online friends to call this “full assault” on Hillary’s character for what it is.”

I got a copy of the email he sent out so I’m going to post it in its entirety. The subject title reads as follows: Barack Obama’s “Full Assault” On Hillary Clinton. The email text is below:

I’m writing this to a group of bloggers. Some of you are Hillary supporters, some not, some neutral.
I want to address a pervasive misconception, namely, that Senator Obama hasn’t run a negative campaign against Hillary. I think it’s time to put that misconception to rest.
The truth is that for months, the Obama campaign has been attacking Hillary, impugning her character and calling into question her lifetime of public service. And now the Chicago Tribune reports that Senator Obama is preparing a “full assault” on her “over ethics and transparency.” To those who contend that Senator Obama is the clear frontrunner, I ask, to what end this “full assault” on Hillary?
On CNN last Tuesday, Senator Obama said, “Well, look, Wolf, I think if you watch how we have conducted our campaign, we’ve been very measured in terms of how we talk about Senator Clinton. … I have been careful to say, that I think that Senator Clinton is a capable person and that should she win the nomination, obviously, I would support her. You know, I’m not sure that we have been getting that same approach from the Clinton campaign.”
The facts of this election stand in stark contrast to that statement. Senator Obama and his senior campaign officials have engaged in a systematic effort to question Hillary’s integrity, credibility, and character. They have portrayed her as someone who would put her personal gain ahead of the lives of our troops, someone who would say or do anything to win an election, someone who is dishonest, divisive and disingenuous. They have adopted shop-worn anti-Clinton talking points, dusted them off and unleashed a torrent of unfounded character attacks against her. Among other things, they have described Hillary – and her campaign – as:
“Disingenuous”
“Too polarizing to win”
‘Divisive’
“Untruthful”
“Dishonest”
‘Calculating’
“Saying and doing whatever it takes to win”
“Attempting to deceive the American people”
“One of the most secretive politicians in America”
“Literally willing to do anything to win”
“Playing politics with war”
To top it off, they have blanketed big states with false radio ads and negative mailers — ads and mailers that experts have debunked time and time again. They have distributed health care brochures using Republican framing. They have tried to draw a nexus between Hillary’s votes and the death of her friend Benazir Bhutto. And one of Senator Obama’s top advisers (who has since left the campaign) recently called Hillary “a monster.”
This “full assault” on Hillary comes from the very top of the Obama campaign, not surrogates and supporters.
This “full assault” is being directed at someone I personally know to be a thoughtful, brilliant, principled, compassionate person, someone the world knows as a good Democrat, a trailblazer, a lifelong champion for children and families, a respected former first lady, a senator, a presidential candidate.
This “full assault” is targeting a staff of hundreds of hard-working, dedicated Democrats, who I’ve had the privilege of working with for the past 14 months.
This is a hard-fought campaign – as it should be. Like any candidate for elected office, Hillary has made clear why she thinks she would do a better job than her opponent. She has laid out comprehensive policy proposals, put forth her 35-year record of accomplishment, and spent countless days introducing herself to voters across the country. She has said that she is far better prepared to take on John McCain on national security. She has contended that she is the candidate with the experience to confront the GOP attack machine. She has argued that she is more electable. She has said that Senator Obama’s words are not matched by actions. And she has challenged him to live up to core Democratic values and goals such as universal health care.
I recall indignation online at the suggestion that Senator Obama has not made the case that he is ready to be Commander in Chief — the concern being that this would be terribly detrimental to him in a general election. As I blogged recently, and as many of you know, I spent 2004 in the Kerry-Edwards war room, and I understand full well that national security will be front and center in the general election. It’s not a matter of choice. And the reality is that the public views Hillary as better prepared to take on Senator McCain when it comes to national security. Democrats must factor that in as they nominate a candidate to win in November.
If that suggestion is potentially harmful to Senator Obama in a general election, how exactly do the personal attacks against Hillary (which echo and reinforce rightwing talking points) help her in the event she wins the nomination? I recall no similar outrage at those harsh attacks on her character, many of which were directed at her when she was the clear frontrunner and seen as the likely nominee.
Both candidates are running a vigorous campaign. Both have had surrogates or supporters who have crossed the line and made offensive statements that they rejected. And these offensive statements are an unfortunate part of a long and close campaign. Those who make a habit of automatically assuming and ascribing to only one candidate the worst motives, ignoring more reasonable and benign explanations, who substitute conjecture for fact and then use those assumed ‘facts’ as a foundation on which to pile more conjecture about only one candidate’s intentions, who express anger at negative campaigning and perceived dirty tricks but focus on only one candidate’s words and actions, risk losing credibility. And those who conclude from that one-sided reasoning that Hillary ought to stop seeking victory, should ask themselves if quitting in the middle of a hard-fought “and winnable” contest is a desirable attribute in a future president.
Hillary has rightfully stated that as Democrats we should be proud of our field of candidates. And it is truly inspiring to see the level of enthusiasm among voters this cycle. We should encourage as many people as possible to become part of this process and to forcefully advocate for their candidate of choice. But there is a sharp line between supporting a candidate (and excusing their faults, which all supporters do to some degree) and conducting a “full assault” on an opponent’s integrity and character. The Obama campaign’s unabashed attacks on Hillary’s honesty and trustworthiness should give every Democrat pause.
We are all entitled to support and oppose whomever we choose, but I challenge my online friends to call this “full assault” on Hillary’s character for what it is.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Hillary Clinton for President

By Taylor Marsh on 05 February 2008

cross-posted at Huffington Post

It was the middle of primary season. Everyone was busy. But one morning an opportunity arose at an event I attended, when two women finally got the chance to meet. It’s on this
fine day that Hillary and I chatted, and I was able to size up the woman intending
to make history, as she sized up one of the many women who wanted to, against
all odds, help her do it. That’s correct, against all odds. As Gloria Steinem said so well: women are never frontrunners. I’ll just add, especially when they’re competing for commander in chief. As I left after meeting her that day all I could think
about was, Madame President had a nice ring and was long overdue.

This has been a journey for me. I didn’t start out in Clinton’s camp. Watching
the media eviscerate her for being a woman, being brilliant, being competent
and strong, being a Clinton, I started to get incensed at the hatred
I was witnessing, the unfairness too. I’ve read dozens of books and papers on
her, but I began watching more closely. Then I saw her in action. She blew everyone
else off the stage on substance. Barack Obama skipped the very first forum held in Carson City. The first health care debate Obama showed up, but wasn’t ready with
his health care plan and didn’t have any details to offer. Clinton showed up and laid it out, point by point,
Edwards too. This happened in event after event; then debate after debate. It
took Obama an entire year to catch up with her on debating the issues. That’s
as slow a learning curve as you’re going to find for the biggest job in the
world. No one noticed. In the last debate people started saying Barack Obama finally held his own. Finally being the operative word. Seeing a segment on
“Hannity & Colmes” last night, voters for Obama were asked by
Sean Hannity to name an accomplishment of Barack Obama’s. Frank Luntz went from
voter to voter to voter. No one could name one. Hannity was incredulous. But
you’re going to nominate him for president?

Personally speaking, we are facing an opportunity that is unlikely to happen
again in my lifetime. Well, maybe it will, but I don’t see any woman in the
wings waiting for a shot. It hasn’t happened in over 200 years, though that’s
hardly as important as the issues facing our country and who can solve them.
Women got jailed for wanting to vote, and were the last to get it; though no one has suffered voting discrimination more than African Americans, which has been even worse for AA females. Women got jailed
for wanting power over our own bodies. We fought to have rights separate from our husband. We’re still fighting for equal pay. I doubt we’ll ever get equal representation
on the cable shows! (Forget “Meet the Press.”) We’ve been daughters,
sisters, mothers, wives, single and now we can even be child free without stigma.
We’ve come a long way, baby. We can have it all. So why not the presidency?
We can’t do any worse than the men, though that’s not saying much considering
the jackass in power right now. But what a man can do with no experience and
a little flash, a woman of the same age cannot. Women need to work for years
and prove they’re ready for the job, while a man does not. Now, when one immensely qualified woman is ready to lead, we’re all being told that she’s not change enough. To some of us, regardless of race or even gender, she not only looks like change, but sounds like change, because she is the very embodiment of change. But that’s certainly
not the entire issue. We’ve finally been presented with a qualified woman
who is ready and who’s proven it. Elect a brilliant woman to do a job men have been doing
for two centuries in a country where women are the majority. The first woman ever to run this country. Change, baby.

In countries across the world, where women have a voice the country is stronger.
Can you imagine the potential for change, however small to start, in countries across
the Arab and Muslim world, Asia and beyond, with a woman president willing to
say “human rights are women’s rights”? We are at a moment in world
history where we have the opportunity to send a message to the world, and change
the dynamics with it in countries where violence breeds world instability, bringing danger to our very door. Women
can begin to change all that. By strengthening women’s voices, including in countries where they have none at all, we increase the
opportunity that countries will be put on a more positive footing, a more peaceful path. That’s not
just change for America, but change for the world. A girl can dream.

I can’t tell you in one post why Hillary Clinton would be the most revolutionary
change for America and also the world, but I can tell you that no one has her broad
base of experiences, knowledge and Democratic ideological passion. No candidate,
other than John McCain, understands the deep challenges we face in our strategic military placement, as well as in our Armed Forces structure. On foreign policy matters,
I think she understands the levels of engagement that need to be in place before
putting the prestige of the President of the United States and our country on
the line. I also think she’s less likely to make a rookie mistake that will cost us.
Her caution is comforting, because after what Bush has wrought we’re going to
need patience to rebuild what he’s destroyed. She’s going to immediately start
by rebuilding our diplomatic relationships through emissaries until she’s face
to face with leaders around the world who have pledged to deal with the new
U.S. President. She also won’t act on “actionable intelligence” alone, which has been costly in the past. Geopolitical engagement after Bush-Cheney won’t be like turning on a light switch. It will take relationship building, which starts on levels below the president if you want to construct something solid that can’t easily crumble with the world press watching.

It’s difficult to separate emotion from a vote like this. Hillary Clinton embodies
every fight I’ve ever waged. Every battle I’ve ever engaged. She is the embodiment
of hope for all women, as well as anyone looking for a better life, a fairer
break, young, old, poor and poorer. She’s got the passion and she’s got plans
to make them happen. She gives me hope for the future, because I believe she
actually knows what she’ll face if elected and walks in to meet the federal
bureaucracy. I won’t be crossing my fingers. I’ll be confident she can do it
and will also know how to pick others who can too.

There are so many intangibles when picking a president. I heard Michelle Obama
touting Barack Obama’s experience on Sunday in L.A., via C-SPAN. She was good
too. At one point she went into a riff about his years in the Illinois State
Senate saying, and I’m paraphrasing here, wouldn’t it be great to have a president
who has local experience and can understand what happens at the state level?
That’s a governor’s job.

Men have been leading this country for over two centuries. But more importantly, we need someone who has demonstrated depth of knowledge on a full range of issues, with the mental acuity to also deliver on promises made. Finally, at long last, after two centuries of waiting, this time out
that person is a woman. Her name is Hillary Clinton.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Biden’s Remarks on the Law of the Sea Treaty

By Taylor Marsh on 31 October 2007

updated

I just received Senator Biden’s statement on the Convention of the Law of the Sea. They’re below, in full. If you need background, I’ve offered some here and here. There was also a great post over at Democracy Arsenal yesterday you should check out as well. Interestingly enough, Scott Paul over at the Washington Note points to an op-ed by Jim head of the black helicopter crowd Inhofe, that has him basically admitting he’s full of it on CLOS.

It is important to note that no foreign or international entity could actually force the United States into any international court. The United States could go on about its business as if everyone else in the world is misinterpreting the treaty â€” but our standing in the world would suffer because of this.

It’s hard to believe that our standing could be any worse. That Inhofe is going against what the U.S. Navy wants and the Joint Chiefs support shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s why his Democratic opponent, Andrew Rice, has blasted away at him.

“As a U.S. Senator who constantly portrays himself as a pro-national security public servant, Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe is now choosing to ignore the pleas of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of the Navy, among other military leaders, when they ask for Senate approval of UNCLOS. American military leaders have made it clear that participation in UNCLOS will enhance our national security and that changes have been made in UNCLOS provisions to explicitly protect American interests. And yet Jim Inhofe and a very small minority are working against our nation’s best interests, simply because it might hurt the special interests he puts before the needs of Oklahomans again and again. Inhofe is clearly out of step with our national security needs.” – Andrew Rice

Ratifying CLOS is very important and Biden explains why.

Today the Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations will consider five
treaties and three nominations.
The lead item on the agenda is the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which
has been pending before the Senate for thirteen years. This will be the second
time the Committee has voted on the treaty. In 2004, when Senator Lugar was
Chairman, it was approved by a vote of 19 to zero.
The treaty is the product of over two decades of effort, which began in 1970,
when President Nixon proposed a new round of negotiations to remedy flaws
in four treaties on the law of the sea that had been adopted in 1958.
In May 1970, President Nixon called on the nations of the world to resolve
the basic issues of the future regime for the oceans through a new treaty.
The treaty, he said, should establish an international mechanism to authorize
and regulate explorations and use of seabed resources beyond national jurisdiction.
He said, it should also establish general rules to prevent unreasonable interference
with other uses of the ocean, to protect the ocean from pollution, to assure
the integrity of investment necessary for exploitation [of the seabed], and
to provide for peaceful and compulsory settlement of disputes.
The point of all this, he said, was to save the oceans from national conflict
and rivalry, protect it from pollution and put it to use for the benefit of
all. That was Richard Nixon â€“ hardly a starry-eyed liberal when it came
to international affairs. And every President since Nixon has supported these
objectives.
President Reagan rejected the Convention in 1982, but only because he objected
to its provisions on deep seabed mining. In 1983, he announced that the United
States would follow the rules laid down in the rest of the Convention. Under
the first President Bush, negotiations to revise the seabed mining provisions
were initiated, culminating in the 1994 Agreement, signed by President Clinton,
on the Implementation of Part Eleven of the Convention.
In 2002, the Bush Administration said that Senate action on the treaty was
urgently needed. In May of this year, President Bush reinforced that statement
by urging the Senate to approve the Convention during this session of Congress.
The Convention is long and complex, but for the United States, I believe
the choice is relatively simple.
Do we join a treaty that establishes a framework to advance the rule of law
on the oceans, that is clearly in our military, economic, and environmental
interests, and that has broad acceptance among the major maritime powers?
Or do we remain on the outside, to the detriment of our national interests?
I strongly believe that we should become a party to the Convention, and that
any risks it poses are far outweighed by the benefits.
Militarily, the treaty codifies key rights of navigation on which the United
States Navy relies. The opponents of the Convention contend that we can use
customary international law, and the military muscle of the Navy, to protect
our navigational interests. This argument is curious, coming as it does from
people who often question that there is such a thing as customary law. More
to the point, however, customary law is less stable, and commands less respect
among nations, than rights firmly established by treaty. I think we owe our
armed forces a firm legal footing as we project power around the globe.
Economically, the treaty provides a range of benefits. Prominent among these
is a means to firmly establish our legal claims to the resources on the continental
shelf beyond 200 nautical miles; off the coast of Alaska, our shelf may extend
for 600 miles. The oil and gas industry is unanimous in support of the Convention,
as they seek the legal certainty needed to invest the dollars necessary to
extract resources from the shelf.
The Convention establishes a legal regime to govern deep seabed mining in
a manner that satisfies all the objections of President Reagan. Among other
things, it abolishes mandatory technology transfer requirements, and gives
the United States a permanent seat on the Council of the International Seabed
Authority, the key decision-making body. The Convention also strengthens legal
protections for underwater sea cables, a key component of our information
age.
The coalition supporting the treaty is broad. In addition to President Bush,
it is supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Western Governors Association,
the Navy League of the United States, the Military Officers Association, the
oil and gas industry, the telecommunications industry, the shipping industry,
and environmental and fishing organizations. I am unaware of any ocean industry
that has expressed opposition to it.
The coalition of supporters also includes both of President Reagan’s Secretaries
of State, Al Haig and George Shultz; his National Security Advisers, Bud McFarlane
and Colin Powell; and his Secretary of Treasury and Chief of Staff Jim Baker.
It was also supported by his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral
William Crowe, who passed away earlier this month, and who was buried this
morning in Annapolis.
The Committee will consider a resolution of ratification, the document by
which the Senate gives advice and consent to treaties. The resolution that
Senator Lugar and I have presented to the Committee is identical to the resolution
that the Committee endorsed unanimously in 2004. It was developed in close
collaboration with the Bush Administration, which was represented in those
negotiations with the Committee by the Departments of State, Defense, and
Justice. Not one word has been changed since 2004.

UPDATE: Foreign Relations Committee Overwhelmingly Approves Law of the Sea. Norm Coleman’s contortions continue.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Black Helicopter Crowd Opposes Law of the Sea Treaty

By Taylor Marsh on 16 October 2007

Sen. James Inhofe
Head of the Black Helicopter crowd.

Senator Joe Biden has decided it’s time to act on UNCLOS, the United Nations
Convention of the Law of the Sea. Because national security is inextricably
entwined in UNCLOS, it’s important to get the treaty adopted by the U.S. However,
the black helicopter crowd, led by Sen. James Inhofe is circling. They’re against
it. Why? Reagan didn’t like it. Never mind that political leaders and business
interests that usually aren’t united are for it. Ignore that Reagan’s previous objections have been completely addressed. Inhofe and his anti U.N. black helicopter crowd are leading the way, obstructing the majority from all political spectrums who are in favor of UNCLOS.

Senator Richard Lugar has been brutal on his attacks on the enemies of what amounts to serious U.S. national security interests. Lugar in late September 2007:

… .. But I want to underscore for my colleagues a fundamental starting point for our hearings. The Commander-in-Chief, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the United States Navy, in time of war, are asking the Senate to give its advice and consent to this treaty. Our uniformed commanders and civilian national security leadership are telling us, unanimously and without qualification, that U.S. accession to this treaty would help them do their job.
We have charged the U.S. Navy with maintaining sea lanes and defending our nation’s interests on the high seas. They do this every day, and even in peacetime these operations carry considerable risk. The Navy is telling us that U.S. membership in the Law of the Sea Convention is a tool that they need to maximize their ability to protect U.S. national security with the least risk to the men and women charged with this task.
This request is not the result of an idiosyncratic Chief of Naval Operations or a recent reassessment by Navy authorities. The support of the military and Navy for this treaty has been consistent, sustained, and unequivocal. All the members of the Joint Chiefs have written us a letter supporting advice and consent. Their predecessors likewise supported this convention. As seven CNOs wrote in a joint letter back in 1998, “There are no downsides to this treaty â€“ it contains expansive terms, which we use to maintain forward presence and preserve U.S. maritime superiority. It also has vitally important provisions, which guard against the dilution of our navigational freedoms and prevent the growth of new forms of excessive maritime claims.”
Mr. Chairman, the military is not always right. But the overwhelming presumption in the United States Senate has been that if our Armed Forces and our entire National Security apparatus ask us for something to help them achieve a military mission, we do our best to provide them with that tool within the constraints of law and responsible budgeting. … ..

But wingnut perversion for the nonsensical knows no bounds. Human Events, Ann Coulter central, is helping Inhofe’s black helicopter crowd actually hold our national security interests hostage.

The Bush Administration has supported UNCLOS for several years, but its decision
to back the pact is shrouded in controversy. President Bush was asked about
the White House position on the treaty in 2004 and he then expressed surprise
that the State Department had convinced Vice President Dick Cheney to endorse
it. This year, however, he issued a statement in support of it. Openly working
with the Democrats, State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III has
tried, without much success, to convince conservatives that the treaty was
somehow “fixed” by a 1994 side agreement negotiated by the Clinton
Administration
Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Republican Senator Richard Lugar, a supporter
of UNCLOS, has joined this chorus, insisting that, “President Reagan
refused to sign it because of technology transfer provisions and other problems
in the section on deep-seabed mining. Later, a hard-fought renegotiation led
to changes that met all of President Reagan’s demands.” However, the
evidence demonstrates that Lugar is just plain wrong.
Conservatives Mobilize
Against Law of the Sea Treaty

You know how this works. The black helicopter crowd hears that Reagan opposed
something and they think that’s the end of the story. Hardly.

Still don’t quite get UNCLOS?

Navigational rights, territorial sea limits, economic jurisdiction, legal
status of resources on the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction,
passage of ships through narrow straits, conservation and management of living
marine resources, protection of the marine environment, a marine research
regime and, a more unique feature, a binding procedure for settlement of disputes
between States – these are among the important features of the treaty. In
short, the Convention is an unprecedented attempt by the international community
to regulate all aspects of the resources of the sea and uses of the ocean,
and thus bring a stable order to mankind’s very source of life.
“Possibly the most significant legal instrument of this century”
is how the United Nations Secretary-General described the treaty after its
signing. The Convention was adopted as a “Package deal”, to be accepted
as a whole in all its parts without reservation on any aspect. The signature
of the Convention by Governments carries the undertaking not to take any action
that might defeat its objects and purposes. Ratification of, or accession
to, the Convention expresses the consent of a State to be bound by its provisions.
The Convention came into force on 16 November 1994, one year after Guyana
became the 60th State to adhere to it.
Law
of the Sea Treaty

Why is the Law of the Sea Treaty important? Scott Paul over at Washington Note:

So why is the Law of the Sea significant? Simple: our absence from
the Law of the Sea is the outer wall of Fortress America. Winning the ratification
battle would seriously de-fang the same pugnacious nationalists who are on
the opposite side of almost every important foreign policy issue facing the
U.S.
The opposition to the Law of the Sea is based entirely on a visceral
hatred for multilateral cooperation. Its champions detest all forms of international
organization and believe the purpose of international law is to constrain
U.S. behavior. They believe the U.S. should rely on the threat of force to
advance its goals and should not be constrained by any rules, even if they
rules that tilt the playing field in our favor.
This opposition is serious, even if its arguments are not.
Why We Should
Care About the Law of the Sea

Stephen Hadley
wrote a letter earlier this year explaining the critical nature of the Law of
the Sea Treaty: In particular, the Convention supports navigational rights
critical to military operations and essential to the formulation and implementation
of the President’s National Security Strategy, as well as National Strategy
for Maritime Security.

Overwhelmingly, senators approve of the ratification of UNCLOS. It’s a chance
to finally get something done, as long as wingnuts like Inhofe don’t get their
way. Considering they’re in the minority it’s long past time their control was
stopped. As for the ridiculous Reagan argument, his objections have been address
and the UNCLOS has been fixed.

Necessary Changes To U.S. Law Or Policy
In 1983, Ronald Reagan directed U.S. agencies to comply with all
of the provisions in LOS except for Part XI, which concerns deep-sea mining.
With U.S. leadership, Part XI was reworked and the Convention was officially
modified in 1994, addressing all U.S. concerns. Since 1983, the U.S. has been
in voluntary compliance with the entire Convention and thus accession would
not result in any changes to current U.S. domestic or foreign policy.
LOS And The U.S. Senate
In 2004 all 19 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted unanimously
in favor of LOS. Although not a single Senator abstained or voted against
the treaty, then Majority Leader Frist never brought it to the floor for a
vote.
Why Join? It Helps Our Military
The U.S. military, which relies heavily on its ability to navigate on and
fly freely over the sea, has been a strong advocate of LOS. In the absence
of treaty law, the U.S. is forced to rely on customary law that can change
as States’ practices change. Also under this customary law, countries
often make unreasonable and irresponsible claims on marine territory to stop
the U.S. military from defending U.S. interests. The U.S. has tried to talk
around these claims, but without a legal framework to support us we risk compromising
our intelligence and military operations at sea. Joining LOS will help us
protect our military’s ability to freely navigate the oceans.
LOS Helps Us Protect The Environment
Oceans cover over 70 percent of the Earth. In the U.S., we have laws to keep
marine resources available for future generations. LOS sets a global standard
so that all countries are legally bound to protect the marine environment,
protect fish stocks, and prevent pollution with as much care as the U.S. does.
Joining LOS would send a message to the world that we care about the global
environment.
The
United States and the Law of the Sea: Time to Join

Senator Inhofe and his black helicopter contingent are against this important
treaty because it’s in cooperation with the rest of the world and comes out
of the U.N. Democrats need to send a message. Republicans in the 109th Congress
refused to bring it to the floor even though it had wide bipartisan support.
Senator Harry Reid needs to set the example, once Joe Biden gets it out of committee.
Our military is depending on us to get something finally done on UNCLOS.

That our environment and health of the seas depend on the Convention should not be ignored. Calling Al Gore. Pick up the phone, Mr. Vice President. Let Senators Joe Biden and Harry Reid know you’re behind UNCLOS. It’s long past time to get this done. Nobody can say no to you now.

UPDATE II: Scott Paul just posted on the latest developments over at Steve Clemons’ place, The Washington Note, as well as his home blog, Citizens for Global Solutions (cross-post link). Scott says some very nice things about yours truly, Matt Stoller, as well as Andrew Rice. Scott’s got the latest rant from wingnut Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. on UNCLOS, which you really have to read to believe.

UPDATE: State Senator Andrew Rice is challenging James Inhofe, running against him for Senate. He’s a Blue America candidate, who was recently spotlighted on Firedoglake by Howie Klein. He’s being described as “another Paul Wellston” by some. The statement below was just emailed to me. Andrew Rice gets it.

“As a U.S. Senator who constantly portrays himself as a pro-national security public servant, Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe is now choosing to ignore the pleas of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of the Navy, among other military leaders, when they ask for Senate approval of UNCLOS. American military leaders have made it clear that participation in UNCLOS will enhance our national security and that changes have been made in UNCLOS provisions to explicitly protect American interests. And yet Jim Inhofe and a very small minority are working against our nation’s best interests, simply because it might hurt the special interests he puts before the needs of Oklahomans again and again. Inhofe is clearly out of step with our national security needs.” – Andrew Rice

Read full story · Comments are closed

HEROES: Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame

By Taylor Marsh on 06 March 2007

VIDEO of Keith and Wilson

The
National Review wasted no time squealing for a pardon for the vice president\’s convicted felon aide. It\’s what we all have suspected would be in the
air on this day. It\’s what should be expected from Scooter Libby, the man who
argued for a pardon for Mark Rich. Remember him? The guy who had wingnuts screaming
to high heaven back in the good old days of Bubba.

But in the mix today we are now getting the
visceral reaction of the wingnuts, finally coming out of their fantasy lives
to once again smear Joe Wilson. Not even a guilty verdict is enough to calm
the conservatives. They\’re still rehashing the trumped up Republican report
that crafted a case against Joe Wilson, which he long
ago rebutted in writing, including a
letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee. But Republicans being, well,
Republicans, don\’t let facts alter their fantasies. All the links
take you to where the truth is laid
out.

The truth is what infuriates the Republicans: Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are heroes. But they have paid for their courage
and so has this country. Because let\’s remember, Ms. Plame was a WMD analyst
when the vice president\’s office targeted her husband, hoping to get a twofer and outing a classifed CIA operative in the process. The campaign
against the Wilson\’s was un-American and dangerous to our national security interests, but there\’s no reason to think it will
stop today. The country has paid through the disgraced presidency and vice presidency
of Bush and Cheney, as well as in the Iraq war, including the horrendous mismanagement
and mistreatment of our soldiers from front line to homeland.

As for Scooter Libby, a civil suit awaits. As for the vice president, he is
disgraced. Then there is Mr. Bush. He has the dubious honor of having the highest
aide ever convicted in an Administration since Iran-Contra. Finally, a Reagan
moment.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton’s Inevitability Campaign

By Taylor Marsh on 22 January 2007

There’s death and taxes and now, evidently, Hillary as the 2008 nominee.

The first order of business are expectations and inevitability. Clinton’s camp is putting forth big numbers and making the case that she’s the one that can win. Never mind that it’s not even February of ’07. The job is to dust off her negatives and make people accept, well, the inevitable: Hillary Clinton as the Democratic ’08 choice.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s pollster fired an opening salvo at Sen. Barack Obama and John Edwards yesterday, claiming their campaigns are “stalled or falling” — and suggesting Obama isn’t tough enough to withstand GOP attacks in 2008.
A day after Clinton announced she would run for president — and win — her campaign’s chief strategist Mark Penn sent a memo to reporters intended to offset an avalanche of articles emphasizing Clinton’s high disapproval ratings and questioning her electability.
“She is not just strong, but the strongest Democrat in the field,” wrote Penn, referring to a new national poll showing Clinton with a commanding 20-plus-point lead over Obama and Edwards, the Democratic nominee as vice president in 2004. [...]
… .. But it was Penn who stated that no other Democrat is tough enough to beat back Sen. John McCain or former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. … – Clinton’s camp fires first salvo

There are a lot of people in the race already. I’ve also got to say that Senator Ted Kennedy made me look twice at the TV yesterday when he said on “Meet the Press”: “I’m going to support, support John.” It sounded like he was telegraphing that Kerry is going to run in ’08. Kennedy clarified it a moment later saying it was now a “personal” decision for Kerry. I know they’ve been agonizing over the decision for months. We shall know soon enough.

But Clinton does make one point that seems valid. Who is tough enough among the Democrats to withstand what ’08 will bring? I’ve been having conversations and email chats with people about Clinton. Her negatives worry people a lot. That’s not my problem, frankly.

The only thing besides policy, especially on Iraq, that worries me is who will be able to withstand the negative onslaught of the Republican nominee. Senator Barack Obama is a dynamic politician, no doubt. But I truly don’t get the sense for the jugular from him. Edwards has proved far tougher in the short run than I anticipated he’d be at this very early stage of the campaign. “The McCain Doctrine” was one example, but then going into Hillary’s home turf was another.

If anyone thinks toughness and the ability to fight dirty isn’t important in presidential politics you’re mistaken. Again, I’ve got no dog in this fight right now, but Clinton’s team does have a valid point. With Bill Clinton on her team, there are no two people in politics that know how to combat negative campaigns better. If Clinton is the nominee, which I’m not convinced at all will be the case, you can bet Hillary Clinton can withstand anything and give back just as good. That’s going to matter.

However, if she’s working on inevitability now her expectations are going to get even higher. She’s also going to be met with a chilly reception in some places if she thinks she can force feed her candidacy with primary voters. If she tilts into a campaign of arrogance and anointment people will get very tired of her very quickly. With her numbers at 3% regarding the people who want to know more about her, I’d say she’s got other serious challenges ahead.

Read full story · Comments are closed

National Security is a Woman’s Job

By Taylor Marsh on 14 January 2007

“If the study of Pearl Harbor has anything to offer for the future, it is this,” Mrs. Wohlstetter wrote in her book: “We have
to accept the fact of uncertainty and live with it. No magic, in code or otherwise,
will provide certainty.” Roberta Wohlstetter

Of course, Mr. Russert didn\’t mention her passing today. After all, she\’s a
woman. Russert prefers having men or Kate O\’Beirne on his Sunday show. But regardless
of Mr. Russert\’s continued misogynistic myopia, a major voice in the field of
national security has died. That she was a woman waaaay ahead of her
time is the point. No doubt also the reason it was ignored by Russert\’s \”Meet
the Press.\” As an aside, I long for the moment that Timmy passes the torch to a 21st
century man. Maybe then women, especially progessives, will get our due. But Lord knows, \”Meet the Press\” will never be moderated by a chick.

Ronald Reagan had this to say about Wohlstetter, when he awarded her the Medal
of Freedom. But not in the way Tenet, Bremer and Franks received it, but because
she crashed through a ceiling where women today still strive to be accepted.

Drawing the picture of Wohlstetter more clearly, she was the antithesis of Condoleezza Rice. Wohlstetter understood national security threats. She was also highly competent. I can\’t imagine Wohlstetter missing a PDB blaring Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S.

“Roberta Wohlstetter, a generation ahead of her time, asserted her
influence in areas dominated by and, in some cases, reserved for men,”
President Reagan said during the award ceremony. “She rose above all
obstacles and has had a profound influence. Her inquiries went to the heart
of the system of our society, focusing on essential questions. Her analysis
of the problems of terrorism, intelligence, and warning and, with Albert,
the problem of nuclear deterrence, broke new ground and opened new alternatives
for policymakers.
“I dare say that she has likely enjoyed posing the same penetrating
questions to her husband that she has to the intellectual and political leaders
of the country. And that is certainly one explanation for the clarity and
persuasiveness of his own voluminous words on strategy, politics, and world
affairs.”
ROBERTA WOHLSTETTER,
PIONEERING RAND POLICY ANALYST AND HISTORIAN OF MILITARY INTELLIGENCE

Thanks to ABC\’s \”This Week\” for mentioning Ms. Wohlstetter. The only
*television news organization that I know who did. (The word \”television\” has been added, because, obviously, newspapers had her obituaries, which I linked to in this post, and \”fact checker\” from the comments reminded me.)

Roberta Wohlstetter, a military and foreign policy analyst whose work on
the intelligence failures before the attack on Pearl Harbor was cited by the
9/11 commission, died on Saturday in Manhattan. She was 94.
The cause was pneumonia, said her daughter, Joan Wohlstetter-Hall.
“What does Pearl Harbor tell us about the possibility of a surprise
attack today, with possible consequences of an even greater and perhaps more
fatal magnitude?” Mrs. Wohlstetter asked 45 years ago in her book “Pearl
Harbor: Warning and Decision” (Stanford University Press).
The question became relevant again as the Sept. 11 commission began investigating
the missed opportunities that left the United States vulnerable to the attacks
by Al Qaeda. The panel’s report found major intelligence failures and
analyzed the difficulties in gathering data.
Referring to hindsight, the report quoted Mrs. Wohlstetter’s book:
“After the event, of course, a signal is always crystal clear; we can
now see what disaster it was signaling since the disaster has occurred. Before
the event, it is obscure and pregnant with conflicting meanings.”
Mrs. Wohlstetter, an analyst with the RAND Corporation, the policy research
group, from 1948 to 1965, examined 15 signals that in retrospect clearly seemed
to foretell the Japanese attack on Dec. 7, 1941.
Yet, she wrote: “It is hard to keep in mind that there were many plausible
alternative hypotheses that might have explained this set of signals. Most
of the partisan reviews of the Pearl Harbor material forget these alternative
explanations.”
That assessment has been cited by scholars as an argument to rebut critics
of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, including some Republicans in the 1944
election, who said Roosevelt knew that the attack was coming but did nothing
to stop it to rally the country behind entering World War II.
In 1963, Columbia University gave her the Bancroft Prize for American history.
In 1985, Mrs. Wohlstetter and her husband, Albert, an analyst of nuclear proliferation
at RAND, received the Medal of Freedom from President Ronald Reagan “for
their great contributions to the security of the United States.”
Roberta
Wohlstetter, 94, Military Policy Analyst, Dies

Wohlstetter is a heroine for women like myself who dare to talk about foreign
policy, military and national issues. She excelled back in the bad old days before feminism and equality, in a field that is still, even in the 21st century, dominated by men.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Crazy Curt Weldon’s Able Danger Stunt Implodes

By Taylor Marsh on 25 September 2006

Indiana Weldon has many tin foil hat issues that deserve the light of
day.

As I wrote recently, the shifting
story narrative of his draft dodging and why he didn't go to Vietnam is
just one of them. It's not just the fact that he might have dodged the draft
that bothers me and many others. After all, it was 1969 when everyone knew Vietnam
was a loser, so nobody wanted to be the last guy to die for a mistake, as John
Kerry would say. It's the fact that once he met his challenger, former Admiral
Joe Sestak, it seems his original deferment story needed a little
brushing up. That's when his bad eyesight story was born. But that's just the
latest silliness in Crazy Curt's world.

Laura
Rozen has a new article out for the American Prospect that outlines
the rest.

Probably Weldon’s most notorious venture into the dark side
is something known to insiders as “Able Danger,” an obscure and
now defunct Pentagon data-mining program. Weldon claims the program identified
the chief September 11 hijacker months before the attacks. The villains in
his theory are civil-liberties-minded Pentagon lawyers who supposedly blocked
analysts from sharing their findings with the FBI. He has even alleged that
the 9-11 Commission conspired in a cover-up of the Able Danger findings. (Both
the Pentagon and the 9-11 Commission vigorously dispute his accusations.)
– Laura
Rozen

It's bad enough that Weldon
swiftboated a venerated veteran like Sestak, but we've all come to expect
that these days in the era of EFF
and big scale media companies like XM,
who actually promote swiftboating events through the right-wing talk radio hosts
they carry. But what Weldon did over Able Danger is reprehensible.

… The IG (Inspector General) found no evidence that Able Danger or any
other government entity had identified Mohamed Atta or other terrorist cells
involved in the attackes of Sept. 11, period. “None of the Able Danger
team members, who were in a far better position to describe Able Danger findings”
than Shaffer or Weldon, including the Air Force commander of the unit, agree
that Mohamed Atta or other Sept. 11 hijackers were ever identified, the IG
says. They found not only inconsistent statements from Shaffer and other witnesses
who previously have spoken up in the media and in conversations and testimony
before Weldon, but also witnesses who later changed their statements and disavowed
memories and stories attributed to them by Shaffer and Weldon.
For offenses that are redacted from the IG report on privacy grounds, Shaffer’s
security clearance was revoked by the Defense Department in February 2006.
Some will take this to mean that Shaffer is an honorable whistleblower whose
life and career is being ruined by the system. My sense, after reporting on
the Able Danger story for over a year is that if anyone is to be blamed, it
is Congressman Weldon: he cynically has used Shaffer & co. to pursue a
fantasist political agenda. He is indefensible. …
The
Final Verdict on Able Danger, by William Arkin

One thing Crazy Curt has is connections. You know, in that old style, political
boss-type way. It greases the wheels that keeps Crazy Curt in power.

A case in point: Last year, with Weldon’s support, an Italian-led consortium,
AgustaWestland-Lockheed, won a $1.6 billion Navy contract to build the next
generation of presidential helicopters over a U.S.-led consortium. As part
of its bid, AgustaWestland, the helicopter subsidiary of Italian defense giant
Finmeccanica, expanded its Philadelphia plant operations.
But there was more to the deal than jobs for his district. According to Harper’s
magazine reporter Ken Silverstein, AgustaWestland hired another Weldon daughter,
Kim, to work in its public-relations department. Furthermore, another Finmeccanica
subsidiary, Oto Melara, hired the real-estate agent, Cecelia Grimes, as its
lobbyist. Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense says Weldon promoted
Grimes’ lobbying clients in other ways. “Her clients were being
profiled at congressional hearings that [Weldon] ran,” Ashdown recalls.
Observers say Weldon is a perfect reflection of the political machine
he has represented over the years. “Delaware County is, if
not the most powerful, then one of the oldest and most successful political
machines in the United States,” says former Weldon opponent Dave Landau.
“And Weldon is only a functionary of the machine.”
Anger
Management, by Laura Rozen (emphasis added)
The House’s most erratic member, Curt Weldon, may finally hit a wall.

It's all about Weldon's political muscle machine. Because though it's not
often written about, Curt Weldon isn't taken very seriously in the House or
around Washington. After all, he didn't get the nickname Indiana
Weldon because he's from Indiana. Long after WMDs were no longer a viable
excuse for preemptive war, Curt was ready to head off to Iraq with his little
shovel in his hand to prove all the weapons inspectors, the United States military
and everyone else had been wrong about WMD. Dave Gaubatz, who was supposed to go with Weldon on his WMD
digging expedition, finally backed out when he found out that Crazy Curt was
just hyping it for political publicity, which is Weldon's specialty.

There's also Weldon's support for Uzbekistan's thug, Islam Karimov, who has
reportedly boiled people alive. Talk about Republicans
for Torture in '06 unite! (Anything
to not talk about Iraq.) Evidently, Crazy Karimov is Crazy Curt's kind of
guy. I'm not the only one who feels it's time for Curt Weldon to be fired.

The House of Representatives of our era doesn’t lack for camp spectacle.
There’s Indiana’s Dan Burton, who shot at melons in his backyard
to “prove” that the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered. Tom Tancredo
of Colorado once advocated that America “take out” Muslim holy
sites. The list goes on.
But that list, lengthy as it is, is surely topped by Pennsylvania’s
Curt Weldon. Known as something of a fist-banger and loose cannon — and continually
denied a committee chairmanship by his fellow House Republicans despite his
20 years of service — Weldon has a knack for uncovering fantastic government
conspiracies. Word of this is finally getting around his suburban Philadelphia
district, and he faces his first real challenge in ages this fall, from Joe
Sestak, a retired Navy vice admiral fed up with Republican national-security
policy.
Weldon’s reputation for Tom Clancy-esque capers may be more than offset
by another longtime habit — his ability to bring defense money into the district.
That it sometimes arrives with strings attached, like the hiring of Weldon
friends and family members, seems to matter less than the fact that it arrives
at all. It will take a Democratic tsunami for Weldon to lose, so this race
is worth watching for two reasons: as an electoral bellwether, and because
a Weldon departure would restore a measure of sanity to Washington. …
Anger
Management (emphasis added)
The House’s most erratic member, Curt Weldon, may finally hit a wall.

Now let's get to the crux of Crazy Curt. His wholesale creation of the Able
Danger story is enough to prove he's not all there. He did blogger conference
calls ratcheting up the frenzy; investing time and energy of his congressional
office trying to get this story stirred up, not to mention spending taxpayers' money on a tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
But it's finally been put to rest, which included Curt spending more cash to
prove a negative. The DOD's
Inspector General's office has finally put the nail in Curt Weldon's 9/11
fantasy theories. That's the end of it, right? Wrong, because according to Curt even the DOD Inspector General is wrong. It's a whitewash! Ho-boy.

A Pentagon report rejects the idea that intelligence gathered by a secret
military unit could have been used to stop the Sept. 11 hijackings. … …
The report was ordered following the assertion last year that the unit had
identified four of the 19 hijackers in 2000. That contention was made by a
former intelligence officer who worked on Able Danger, Lieutenant Colonel
Anthony Shaffer, and by Representative Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House
Armed Services and Homeland Security committees.
Weldon, Republican of Pennsylvania, has said the unit used data-mining to
link Atta and three other hijackers to Al Qaeda more than a year before the
attacks. The 71-page report, blacked out in parts, rejected Weldon's contention
that the unit wanted information given to the FBI but that Pentagon lawyers
would not allow it.
Weldon questioned the “motives and the content” of the report and rejected
its conclusions. “Acting in a sickening bureaucratic manner, the DOD IG cherry-picked
testimony from witnesses in an effort to minimize the historical importance
of the Able Danger effort,” Weldon said in a statement.
Pentagon
rejects idea hijackers were known before 9/11

Rep. Weldon went so far as to accuse the 9/11 Commission panel of covering
up Able Danger. He just won't accept the DOD's
Inspector General's report. He's likely making a new tin foil hat as we speak.

Rep. Weldon belongs to the crazy lunatic fringe crowd who, because of his political money machine, has been able to keep himself in power. It speaks volumes that his own party won't let him control the wheels
of any committee even though he's been in power since 1987. Considering all
the mistakes in Iraq, compounded by Indiana Weldon's tin foil hat Able Danger
nonsense, it's a miracle he still has his job. Let's hope his luck is about to run out.

SUPPORT
ADMIRAL JOE SESTAK
(Don't forget, free CDs for every donation, while
they last!)

Read full story · Comments are closed

Meet Coleen Rowley, Another Strong National Security Democrat

By Taylor Marsh on 30 August 2006

Meet Coleen Rowley – A Genuine Agent For Change and Another Strong National Security Democrat
by Howie Klein

Coleen Rowley
on TIME Mgazine cover

Does that cover of TIME Magazine ring a bell? It should; just like Coleen Rowley did for our intelligence establishment. TIME didn't put her on their cover as Person of the Year because they liked her legs. She's the former FBI agent who blew the whistle on the FBI's lack of response to evidence of terrorist activities just before 9/11. The FBI's Minneapolis office had the goods on Zacarias Moussaoui, passed it to DC and DC… ignored it, probably missing an opportunity to derail 9/11. TIME edited down the 13-page memo here. It starts with a gut punch to FBI Director Robert Mueller and the other political appointees Bush had in charge of national security:

The issues are fundamentally ones of INTEGRITY and go to the heart of the FBI's law enforcement mission and mandate. Moreover, at this critical juncture in fashioning future policy to promote the most effective handling of ongoing and future threats to United States citizens' security, it is of absolute importance that an unbiased, completely accurate picture emerge of the FBI's current investigative and management strengths and failures.
To get to the point, I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewing of facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI management has occurred and is occurring. The term “cover up” would be too strong a characterization which is why I am attempting to carefully (and perhaps over laboriously) choose my words here. I base my concerns on my relatively small, peripheral but unique role in the Moussaoui investigation in the Minneapolis Division prior to, during and after September 11th and my analysis of the comments I have heard both inside the FBI (originating, I believe, from you and other high levels of management) as well as your Congressional testimony and public comments.

Coleen is an extraordinary person, a professional and as far from a political hack as you will ever find running for political office. I've written about her before and in the interests of not wasting space, I'd like to ask you to read my take on Coleen from a political point of view at Down With Tyranny. Even forgetting that she's running against one of the most extremist right wing loons in the Congress who thinks exercising congressional oversight means rubber stamping everything Bush and Big Business want (in return for massive “donations” from those same Big Businesses), Coleen is exactly the kind of woman America needs in public ofice.

She is outspoken, honest and her integrity is beyond question– unless you're Karl Rove or one of his minions, in which case… she actually is one of Osama bin Laden's wives. And Coleen doesn't have a lot of nice things to say about the partisans on the extreme far right like Rove. She's a no-nonsense professional and doesn't think Rove's, Cheney's and Bush's partisan game-playing with our national security is tolerable.

Republican officials, as well as unofficial Republicans like Joe Lieberman, are cravenly exploiting the recent terrorist takedown and the all-powerful fear factor to manipulate public opinion for political advantage. But their “reminders,” as they refer to them, are not necessary. There is no question about the magnitude of the threat but that threat is most effectively minimized by smart, solid investigative work, not fear-mongering, “security theater,” or projection of toughness.
As a recent [Minneapolis] Star Tribune editorial pointed out, it was “good police work that foiled the terror threat.” Conversely, Bush's rush to the ill-conceived and unjustified war in Iraq has, irony of all ironies, greatly increased the terrorist threat. According to a recent State Department report, the number of terrorist incidents worldwide increased nearly fourfold in 2005.
George Bush, John Kline and the other public officials responsible for miring America in this costly and counterproductive conflict can't say they weren't warned. A small but vocal group of intelligence experts warned before we ever went into Iraq that a spike in terrorist recruitment would result, including Brent Snowcroft, National Security Adviser under George H. W. Bush.
Weeks before the 9/11 attacks, I saw bureaucratic incompetence hinder an investigation which might have stopped the attacks from happening. So in February 2003, even though I still worked for the government, I spoke upin an effort to head off the even graver mistake of invading Iraq:
At this critical point in our country's history I have decided to try once again, on an issue of even more consequence for the internal security posture of our country. That posture has been weakened by the diversion of attention from al-Qaeda to our government's plan to invade Iraq, a step that will, in all likelihood, bring an exponential increase in the terrorist threat to the U.S., both at home and abroad.
That these predictions have proven accurate means nothing to the GOP leadership in Washington. They believe any admission of error indicates weakness, so they continue their destructive, misguided path regardless of consequences. This is what I meant when I talked about “squaring the error” in my announcement speech in July 2005. The post 9-11 round-up of innocents, indiscriminate and politicized orange alerts, failure to follow tried and true investigative formulas, alienating allies, launching an ill-conceived war, use of torture, illegal wiretapping and over-collection of private data that does nothing but clutter intelligence databases are among the series of errors propelled by a combination of fear, lack of judiciousness and reliance upon neo-con cronies instead of non-partisan experts.
As Edmund Burke, the great British statesman of the 18th century so wisely stated, “nothing so effectively robs the mind of its ability to act or to reason as fear.” And fear is not only the force that's been used to get the public to go along with this squaring of the error, but it's what the terrorists want since provoking fear is their prime tool.
It's difficult to imagine a worse response to 9/11 than the invasion of Iraq, which at the time had no meaningful connection to Al Qaeda, and was serving as a buffer zone in the Mid-east. The invasion not only boosted Al Qaeda recruitment and gave them a training ground, but it diverted resources away from Homeland Security, federal, state and local law enforcement and first responders. Bush and his cronies have received “D's” and “F's” from the nonpartisan 9-11 Commission for failing to implement homeland security safeguards including important port, airport, chemical/nuclear plant and transit system security initiatives. The Bush approach to fighting terror is like playing a soccer game without providing water to your defenders and sending all of your strikers to a bar fight in the next state.
Stellar law enforcement and cooperation between allies– all accomplished within statutory surveillance guidelines, it should be mentioned– are the reasons the London terrorists were stopped. But thanks to the massive distraction in Iraq, the terrorists might succeed in penetrating our defense next time. It's time to push fear and politics aside and start playing a much smarter game. We need to get our troops out of Iraq and focus law enforcement and intelligence gathering in a much more surgical, precise way upon true Al Qaeda terrorist threats and better homeland security.

Hopefully by now you've heard the little song embedded in the nice banner Taylor made for this series (above; just click the banner). A grassroots supporter of Coleen's in Minnesota took the song and made a cool little film which I hope you will take a moment to view. If it inspires you, or if the idea of replacing a rubber stamp political hack with a clear-eyed level-headed, no-nonsense professional inspires you, please take a little trip to Taylor's ActBlue page and make a contribution to Coleen's campaign. Bush and his corrupt rubber stamp are not going to go away of their own accord. And we won't be safe until they do. No one's going to do this for you. Do you believe in America? The real America, not the BushCheneyRove bizarro version? Is it worth fighting for? If you think so, helping to elect Coleen Rowley is a way to affect change.

Read full story · Comments are closed

JOHN MURTHA: Anatomy of a Smear

By Taylor Marsh on 10 July 2006

cross-posted at Huffington Post

Everything was okay until November
17, 2005.

But then all hell broke loose. Scott McClellan kicked it off.

“Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record
of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the
policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic
party. ..” – Press
Secretary Scott McClellan (November 17, 2005)

Never mind that on November 15, 2005, the Senate voted
79-19 that 2006 “should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi
sovereignty.”

Free Republic
ran with GOP Lawmakers Float Ethics Probe of Murtha on November 18,
2005, not wasting a moment's time, which was taken from Roll
Call, both of which ran the day after Murtha announced his Iraq withdrawal plan. The ethics probe dealt with matters going back to 2004 and 2005.
Why now?

If Rep. Murtha didn't have real military clout, being the first Vietnam
veteran elected to the House, the Republican Party wouldn't have bothered with
him. But he does, so they did. It has now escalated into a conservative campaign
to swiftboat a decorated Marine veteran.

Once called one of the most hawkish members of Congress, Rep. John Murtha is
now being presented as some anti war coward. His remarks
about Haditha have unleashed just the latest salvo in the swiftboating
strategy invented by conservatives, which they are now being forced to defend and explain.

Prior to 2005, The Cybercast News Service (CNS), purveyor of all things conservative
and run by L.
Brent Bozell III, had only one article about Rep. John Murtha. The headline
was laudatory: Congressional
Bill Would Establish Memorial for Victims of 9/11 (March 8, 2002). But on
November 18, 2005, Bozell's
team shot into action and hasn't stopped attacking Rep. Murtha since.

What happened to release the cascade of conservative vitriol now directed at
Democratic Congressman and respected war veteran Jack Murtha?

''You can't fire the president unless you're in California,'' Mr. Murtha
said. ''But somebody recommended this policy to him, and he took the recommendation.
Somebody has to be held responsible, and he's got to make the decision who
it was.'' … Mr. Murtha is regarded by both parties as a respected voice
on military matters. Citing poor supplies and support for the troops, he said
he favored quick approval of the $87 billion Mr. Bush requested for Iraq but
said the leaders needed to be replaced. He did not specify which. …
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: CONGRESS; Democratic Hawk Urges Firing of Bush Aides
(Times
Select, September 17, 2003)

In September 2003, Iraq
Toll Hits a Nerve With Murtha obviously resounded across red and blue states,
as well as north and south boundaries. However, with John Murtha considered
a hawk by anyone's standards, the conservatives had to change his legendary
biography, but how?

Even before the president's press secretary, Republican majority leader of the House,
Rep. Tom Delay, aka the Hammer, took a preemptive shot. The Hammer tried
to assail Murtha's hawk status through the Democratic Party. Delay made Democrats the target, by accusing Murtha and others of saying “that American troops aren't up to the job.” That was back in May, 2004. A few months later it
simply wouldn't be enough. With Iraq unraveling and no way out, Murtha had begun
to dismantle the conservative
playbook on national security. This was serious.

Two years later, Arianna
Huffington would call it the “Murtha Effect,” which showed the conservative newspaper chain backed by Clinton hater Richard Melon Scaiffe,
who is known as the “Funding Father of the Right,” endorsing Murtha's
Iraq withdrawal plan in January 2006.

As the old Missouri saying goes, them's fightin' words.

That fight began on November
17, 2005, the day Murtha presented his plan for redeployment from Iraq, which called for a “change in direction.”
After trying for years to get President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and the administration
to change course, through letters and public pleas, the 37-year Marine veteran
realized it wasn't going to happen. To say Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter, chairman
of the House Armed Services Committee, didn't take Murtha's challenge lightly is an understatement.

Murtha's resolution included language the Republicans wanted to avoid, such
as “the American people have not been shown clear, measurable progress”
toward stability in Iraq. It also said troops should be withdrawn “at
the earliest practicable date,” although Murtha said in statements and
interviews Thursday that the drawdown should begin now.
Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) drafted a simpler
resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops, saying it was a
fair interpretation of Murtha's intent. Members were heatedly debating a procedural
rule concerning the Hunter resolution when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) was
recognized at 5:20 p.m. Schmidt won a special election in August, defeating
Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, and is so new to Congress that some colleagues
do not know her name.
(snip)
It was past 10 p.m. when Murtha addressed a relatively subdued House. Hunter's
resolution “is not what I envisioned” because it avoids a broader
debate of the war, which “is not going as advertised,” Murtha said.
“The American people are way ahead of us” in wanting a strategy
to bring the troops home, he added. “It's easy to sit in your air-conditioned
offices and send them into battle.”
(snip)
Top Democrats attacked the GOP tactic. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
said the Republicans “engaged in an act of deception that undermines
any shred of dignity that might be left in this Republican Congress.”
She called Hunter's resolution “a political stunt” and “a disservice
to our country and to our men and women in uniform.”
House
Rejects Iraq Pullout After GOP Forces a Vote
Democrats Enraged By Personal Attack

This was the day Rep. Jean Schmidt basically called
Murtha a coward, and then was made to apologize for her remarks because she
didn't have the evidence to back it up.

One of the oddest headlines of November 18th, however, was when NPR
ran Long-time War Hawk, Murtha Is An Angry Dove. After decades of being
a military hawk, because Murtha couldn't get a response from President Bush
and Donald Rumsfeld, after years of trying, Rep. John Murtha was now not just
angry, but an “Angry Dove.”

Murtha's “dark
night of the soul” had reached a moment where he had to speak out.
George W. Bush pitted against the 37-year Marine veteran was no contest and
the Republicans knew it. Murtha had become a “one man tipping point”
for President Bush. The “war room” was back.

But White House aides concede that they, too, were at fault for having assumed
that Bush was personally unassailable and that eventsâ€”and explanations
of themâ€”would take care of themselves. A war-room defense was “something
we did well during the campaign,” said Nicolle Wallace, Bush's communications
director. “Maybe incorrectly, we had hoped or presumed that wouldn't
be necessary after the election.”
It is. The war room now is back, staffed with many of the same people who
ran it in 2004, led by the Boy Genius himself, Karl Rove.
Bush at the
Tipping Point, by Howard Fineman (Nov. 28, 2005 issue)

Murtha's call for redeployment on Iraq was called a “Cronkite moment,” harkening back to when Walter
Cronkite inspired LBJ to say, “That's it. If I've lost Cronkite,
I've lost middle America.” With Murtha asserting the Iraq policies
of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had “failed,” the entire conservative foreign policy platform was in the kill zone.

L. Brent
Bozell III's first serious attack on Murtha since CNS praised Murtha for
the 9/11 memorial legislation back in 2002, was coverage of Ken Mehlman claiming the Democrats were calling for “surrender.”
The next big story came on January 13, 2006, when Murtha's war hero status was called into question.

“[Murtha] is putting himself forward as some combat veteran with serious wounds and he's using that and it's dishonest and it's wrong,” Bailey told Cybercast News Service on Jan. 9. Murtha served in the Marines on active duty and in the reserves from 1952 until his retirement as a colonel in 1990. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and was a First Marine Regiment intelligence officer in 1966 and 1967.
Murtha and Bailey, once allies, were forced to run against each other in a Democratic congressional primary in 1982 following redistricting. Murtha won the election.
Murtha has, in the past, publicly dismissed any questions about whether he deserved his two Purple Hearts, noting during his 1994 congressional campaign that “I am proud of my service in Vietnam.”
In his Friday, Jan. 13, response to the Cybercast News Service investigation, Murtha again defended his military record.
“Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves,” Murtha wrote in an email response.
“I volunteered for a year's duty in Vietnam. I was out in the field almost every single day. We took heavy casualties in my regiment the year that I was there. In my fitness reports, I was rated No. 1. My record is clear,” Murtha added.
Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question

That CNS article appeared right before a “60 Minutes” interview, where Murtha would say the “'vast majority' of U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year's end.”

As Media
Matters chronicled, CNS
was the first to trumpet the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, with this little
headline on May 3, 2004: Kerry 'Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief,' Say Former
Military Colleagues.

The conservative Heritage
Foundation is always on the case of anyone who is anti-war:
Almost all oppose capitalism and believe in socialism; many are Communists.
But they didn't get busy attacking Rep. Murtha until after November 17,
2005: Iraqis
Look to Future, Dispelling
the Myths About Iraq, Fighting
the Good Fight, but who could resist their compilation of Facts
and Analysis on the “progress in Iraq”? At least that piece made the effort to go back to when Murtha's complaints and pleas began.

Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard started weighing in with Abandoning Iraq (November 28, 2005). Nobody was more pro Iraq war than Kristol's Standard. Murtha was big game to them.

But it was in December 2005, when conservative darling Ann Coulter gave one of her first swiftboat style attacks against Murtha, when she questioned Murtha's
medals in her syndicated column on Townhall.com (which has just relaunched).

Newsbusters raised the rhetoric
in early 2006 by also going after Murtha's medals: More On Murtha: CNSNews.com Suggests He
Has Kerry-Like Purple Heart Stories (January 14, 2006).

CNS joined in with Murtha's
War Hero Status Called Into Question, followed by this
beauty: Murtha's Anti-War Stance Overshadows Abscam Past. Bozell's
CNS “investigation” had begun. Fast-forwarding to June, we got Murtha's
Path to Dem Leadership Role: GOP and Hoyer.

But what would an attack on a veteran be without Fox
News, Sean Hannity and John O'Neill in the mix? Compliments of Media Matters we have the
tape (May 23, 2006).

However, who could expect the Heritage Foundation to actually admit the Republican
Party's modus operandi?

A draft resolution by the House International Relations Committee declares
that “the United States will complete the mission in Iraq and prevail
in the Global War on Terror and the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist
adversary.” This resolution has been in the works since last November
when the debate over Iraq turned into a debate over Rep. John Murtha and his
motives for advocating an immediate withdrawal of American troops.
Destiny
awaits (June 15, 2006)

A debate? What it became was an all out smear campaign targeting one of the
most hawkish Democratic Party members in Congress, a decorated veteran, who
dared to ask for accountability from a president, secretary of defense and an
administration who doesn't know the meaning of the word.

L. Brent Bozell III also had his “Media Research Center” join the campaign on January 17, 2006: Murtha’s
Mangled Medal Stories. Free
Republic was on the job, picking the story up so more could get in on the
action.

But it never stuck. After all, it's hard to argue with the Marine Corps. But
they kept on trying.

Murky Jack Murtha from the American
Spectator came on February 2, 2006, making sure that Abscam, Bozell's CNS
and everything conservative were thrown into the mix. The American Spectator
led the fight against President Bill Clinton. The attacks on Murtha continue
on their blog.

Newsbusters led with this one
on February 24, 2006: CBS Uniquely Showcases Murtha's Slam of Bush, Insistence
Iraq Already in Civil War.

Skipping to recent days, on June 19, 2006, Pajamas
Media trumpeted the “public meltdown” of Murtha.

The Real Jack Murtha, by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's
press secretary, Tony Blankley (June 21, 2006) was next, with many others
picking up the attacks in between.

A story that had died almost a year earlier was now being resuscitated with
all the Republicans blowing at once. From Power
Line we got Jack Murtha and the culture of corruption (June 21,
2006), while simultaneously touting his congressional opponent, Diane Irey, whom I'll get to in a moment. Instapundit had Irey, complete with video.

Robert Novak joined the Republican pack with his syndicated column Murtha's Second Act, which was covered everywhere, including Bozell's CNS (June 22, 2006).

Rush
Limbaugh touted both CNS and Novak's column on the same day (June
22, 2006), putting an emphasis on a case in which the FBI had no interest, where Murtha was concerned.
Limbaugh links to the FBI site archives related to Abscam, but a search reveals nothing on Murtha.
Out of ten Abmscam FBI FOIA files available online, ranging between 50 and 76 pages each, not one search
yielded Murtha's name, but Rush links to the sites and the public's questions anyway. The links themselves are
meant to prove Murtha's involvement in Abscam. Get the message? If not, John Fund helped out a few days later, reminding everyone that even though Murtha was cleared, he was still guilty.

It's hard to forget the recent correction the Florida Sun-Sentinel had
to issue after the story (June 25, 2006) that screamed: Murtha says U.S.
poses top threat to world peace. Drudge,
of course, was on the job, but so was Keith Olbermann, because Murtha never said anything of the sort.

Correction
A South Florida Sun-Sentinel article on Sunday misinterpreted a comment from
U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., at a town-hall meeting in North Miami.
In his speech, Murtha cited a recent poll, by the Pew Global Attitudes Project,
that indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries
consider the U.S. presence in Iraq a greater danger to world peace than any
threats posed by Iran or North Korea. Murtha said U.S. credibility was suffering
because of continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and the perception that
the United States is an occupying force.

Before the retraction,
conservatives Bill O'Reilly (who claims he's an “independent”), Tucker
Carlson and Newt Gingrich parroted the line, with Brit Hume not far behind.
Hume and O'Reilly offered corrections, though with caveats.

It would have been much easier just to read the Christian
Science Monitor headline (June 15, 2006), which came from a Pew
Research Poll: US in Iraq greatest danger to global peace? Much of world
says yes, in survey that also shows declining support for war on terror. But
that would not have made their case.

You'd think this would have ended it.

But even after the correction, conservative bloggers went after Murtha yet
again (July 6, 2006), with Wizbang!
challenging people to “watch the whole video and come to the conclusion
that Murtha doesn't agree with world opinion.” Other conservative
bloggers dutifully picked up the post, asking things like What
did Murtha really say in Miami, with Outside
the Beltway analyzing “the tone of the video,” while one conservative
blogger blared “Tokyo Murtha,” complete with graphics
no veteran deserves. BlackFive, winner of a 2005
Milbog award, mimicked Drudge, screaming “Wizbang!
Exclusive – Murtha's Comments Exposed”.

On June 27, 2006, conservative Newt Gingrich and right-wing talk radio host Mike
Gallagher, sitting in for Sean Hannity, teamed up to not only suggest Murtha
is “just plain crazy,”
but to trumpet their Americanism, when the only one between any of them who
actually served in the military was Rep. John Murtha. Gingrich said Murtha is
just playing politics: “bashing America, and bashing the military,
and repudiating everything I've stood for my whole life.”

Yet conservatives are aghast when
Rep. Murtha tells the truth about House members, prominent conservatives and Vice President Dick Cheney: Nets Lead
With Murtha, Highlight His Ridicule of Cheney's Lack of Military Service.

And there's only one reason why: “On military matters, no
Democrat in Congress is more influential,” CBS Evening News anchor
Bob Schieffer asserted in bucking up Murtha's credentials at the top of his
newscast, insisting therefore “all of Washington listened” to him.

By the end of June, 2006, Media
Matters had chronicled a long list proving the Republican Party had begun
their full out assault on the Democratic Party, with a lot of help from others:
Media coverage of Iraq debate steeped in GOP talking points.

But what about the conservative blogs? Michelle
Malkin never, ever
stops,
unless, of course, she gets caught
in her anti veteran spin. BlackFive
chimes in, calling Murtha the Congressional Cowardice Caucus Chairman.
Power Line on “mad
Jack Murtha.” Expose
the Left has lots of links, but it all gets down to Murtha. Captains
Quarters does double duty, trying to tie Murtha with Kerry's 1971 testimony
before the Senate. Get it? Republicans
and Conservatives asks: Who is the real John Murtha? AnkleBitingPundits
offers If He Ran For President, Would Murtha’s VP Be Kim Jong Il?
Even the usually restrained Right-Wing
Nuthouse couldn't resist: OLD SOLDIERS SHOULD JUST FADE AWAY, with his usual all caps (exclamation mark required)! Jeff Goldstein calls Murtha “Chickenlittlehawk,” then adds his extra touch: The war in Iraq is right because it is right. Who can argue with that logic?

The Wall
Street Journal and John
Fund get their licks in too, making sure to offer a “clarification”
over the Sun-Sentinel mistaken Murtha quote. Big of them, isn't it? AOL Journal
gets in on it too, with “The
Murtha Brothers.”

Coincidentally, an article no longer available has been kept
alive by conservatives. Murtha's brother
a defense department lobbyist? Did Murtha influence contracts his way? Seems
fair game, but they deny it. But if that's fair, then what about Rep.
Duncan Hunter's money shenanigans as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, which are more varied and a lot deeper?

One of the big unknowns in the campaign against Rep. John Murtha remains Rep.
Duncan Hunter. Newsweek reported that the FBI is investigating Brent “boom
shaka laka” Wilkes’s ties to Duncan
Hunter. It was Duncan Hunter's association that got me interested
a couple of weeks
ago, because where there are conservatives, money and defense contracts, corruption
has been proven to follow. Just ask conservative Republican
Duke Cunningham and the cast
of characters around him that includes Duncan Hunter. The list is long, which a search on TPM Muckraker will reveal.

However, one member, Amanda Doss, who started Murthalied.com,
has folded one tent and joined forces with BootMurtha.
Evidently, she
couldn't stand the heat. BootMurtha is run by Larry
“proud to be swiftboating” Bailey. Doss's original site came out
of KerryLied.com, which was helped along
by WorldNetDaily.
(Oh, there's also MurthaMustGo.)

That brings us to Tony Snesko, a prominent Swiftboat Veterans for Truth guy who “inspired
Operation Street Corner,” which is Doss's
baby. A fitting name, if you ask me. But that's not the only thing interesting
about Mr. Snesko. His wife, Valerie Snesko, works as the personal appointment secretary for Rep.
Duncan Hunter. So it looks like we've come full circle. When I broke out with
the Hunter – Murtha angle recently, I got a hold of an email that was reminiscent
of the bad old days of the non denial denial.

In light of other E-mails I have received today, I am assuming that you are
connecting me with Murtha, who I have said nothing against and I am not associated
with the Murthalied. Tony

If Tony is getting emails he has only himself to blame, because he's listed as the contact number
for an engagement featuring Rep.
Duncan Hunter that appears on the National Republican Congressional Committee website.

It doesn't explain why conservative Rep. Duncan Hunter is selling
out a fellow brother in arms.

Is Hunter's personal secretary being married to a
former Swiftboat Veteran for Truth just a coincidence? Is it just a coincidence that the attacks on Murtha started immediately after Rep. Murtha dared to suggest redeployment of American troops
from Iraq? Are all these people connected to each other and conservative causes, organizations, the Republican Party and their bloggers and writers, and the swiftboating acts against John Murtha all just one big coincidence?

It can't be to get Ms. Diane Irey elected instead of Murtha, because if
you investigate her it turns out her husband went to Iraq to make money, only to have his
partner end up murdered. You then find out the only claim to fame of Ms. Irey is the swiftboating of
Rep. John Murtha. Irey has Vets4Irey, which
is connected to Vets4Bush and was created
by the same guy who allowed Senator John Kerry to be called a “traitor” on the site
as part of the swiftboating of the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004. Maybe we should just call what's happening to Murtha a congressional fragging.

Oh, and speaking of fragging, what would the swiftboating of a Democratic veteran
be without conservative Ann Coulter's latest comment about
Rep.
John Murtha: “The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'” Hey,
but not to worry, Ann, NewsMax
has your back.

Now called “swiftboating,” going after fellow combat veterans is a new phenomenon, invented by conservatives to go after veterans who buck the powers that be. It started with the swiftboating of Senator John McCain during the 2000 primaries and originated with George W. Bush's first presidential campaign. It has spread out to include former decorated veteran, former Senator Max Cleland, as well as retired generals who have criticized the Iraq war policies of President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld.

Hang on, because it's not over yet. After all, November elections are coming up and as Iraq goes, so goes the conservatives, the Republican Party and the national security image they are trying so desperately to salvage.

Read full story · Comments are closed