Updated: 3/1/08; 6:58:40 AM.
Patricia Thurston's Radio Weblog
        

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

McCain: ‘Anyone Who Worries About How Long We’re In Iraq Does Not Understand The Military’.

Speaking to reporters in Richmond, VA last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attacked “anyone” who points out that he is “fine” with keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 or more years. “Anyone who worries about how long we’re in Iraq does not understand the military and does not understand war,” said McCain.

He then added that it is “really almost insulting to one’s intelligence” to question “how long we’re in Iraq” because he believes the current “strategy” is “succeeding.” Watch it:

Screenshot
<script type="text/javascript"> var flvMcCainUnderstandMilitary32024019525 = new SWFObject('/wp-content/plugins/flvplayer.swf?file=http://video.thinkprogress.org/2008/02/McCainUnderstandMilitary.320.240.flv&;autoStart=false', 'em-flvMcCainUnderstandMilitary32024019525', '320', '260', '6', '#ffffff'); flvMcCainUnderstandMilitary32024019525.addParam('quality', 'high'); flvMcCainUnderstandMilitary32024019525.addParam('wmode', 'transparent'); flvMcCainUnderstandMilitary32024019525.write('flvMcCainUnderstandMilitary32024019525'); </script>

By dismissing as na[radical]Øve those concerned with how long the U.S. military is mired in Iraq, McCain is claiming that top officials in the Pentagon don’t understand “the military” or “war” as well as he does. In a recent GOP presidential debate, McCain argued, “I’m the expert” on Iraq.

Top military brass, such as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen and Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, have worried in the past year that “a protracted deployment of U.S. troops”in Iraq would not be a wise move for the military:

- In October 2007, Casey said that “it’s going to take us three or four years and a substantial amount of resources to put” the Army “back in balance” and that time frame depends on when “the conflict end[s].”

- In July 2007, Mullen testified that without political and economic progress in Iraq, “no amount of troops and no amount of time will make much of a difference” and that “a protracted deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq…risks further emboldening Iranian hegemonic ambitions.”

By McCain’s logic, both the Army Chief of Staff and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff don’t “understand the military” as well as he does.

[Think Progress]
4:26:57 PM    comment []

HuffPost's Overlooked Quotes Of The Day.





"There has been an attempt to ghettoize me for a very small part of my biography."


-- Mike Huckabee, on his former life as a pastor.
(2/12/2008)

***

"There are only 10 basic laws that we need ... the reason that the law is more complicated is because we try to find clever ways around those 10."


-- Mike Huckabee, on legal reform.
(2/11/2008)

***

"Because size does matter he's doing quite a bit better with the number of delegates he has."


-- Mitt Romney, on John McCain.
(2/7/2008)

***

"It was close but in the end I went for Obama."


-- Barack Obama, at the polls.
(2/5/2008)

***

"My mom made pancakes every single morning at our house," he said, with a smile of fond reminiscence. He stopped abruptly. "My wife!" he corrected. "I called her my mom. My wife."


-- Mitt Romney hands a nice Freudian slip to Dana Milbank.
(2/1/2008)

***

"Obama's campaign has been extraordinary and titillating for me and my family."


-- Jimmy Carter, feeling titillated, but still refusing to endorse.
(1/29/2008)

***

"The miracle happened. God sent an angel named Rudy Giuliani."


-- Jon Voight, touched by an angel.
(1/28/2008)

***

"The American people should be frightened."


-- Mitch McConnell, ratcheting up the rhetoric in the FISA reform debate.
(1/28/2008)

***

"It's fairly simple. We get to continue running for president until we decide we're not running for president."


-- Joe Trippi, after John Edwards finished third in the South Carolina primary.
(1/26/2008)

***

"This was a good, old fashioned butt kicking."


-- David Axelrod, on Barack Obama's South Carolina victory.
(1/26/2008)

***

"I'm going to Philadelphia and running up the steps."


-- John McCain, on courting the coveted Sylvester Stallone endorsement.
(1/24/2008)

***

"I'm John Edwards and I represent the 'grown-up wing' in the Democratic Party."


-- John Edwards, responds to the post-debate bickering between Obama and the Clintons.
(1/22/2008)

***

"I want some Obama Republicans! Obamacans!"


-- Barack Obama, explaining his recent reference to Reagan Democrats.
(1/20/2008)

***

"I got my butt kicked in Nevada."


-- John Edwards, on Face The Nation.
(1/20/2008)

***

"Well, it took a little while, but what's 8 years between friends?"


-- John McCain, in his South Carolina victory speech.
(1/19/2008)

***

"We aren't voting here, we're caucusing. "


-- Nevada Judge James Mahan, on a lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of at-large caucuses in casinos.
(1/17/2008)

***

"All of our problems are interconnected, but we treat them as though one is guacamole and one is chips."


-- Hillary Clinton, speaking to a Latino audience
(1/15/2008)

***

"She looks like a husky, those weird blue eyes. Cindy McCain has the most intense blue eyes. ... They were so intense, I couldn't stop staring at her. She must have thought I was weird."


-- Katie Couric, who, for some reason, thinks she might sound weird.
(1/14/2008)

[The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com]
9:11:15 AM    comment []

Democracy and Elections: My Brother the Superdelegate (and Why I Don't Trust Him to Pick the Next President). My brother Rahm is a Dem superdelegate. I love my brother, and I trust him. But I stopped letting my brother dictate my life when we were kids. [AlterNet.org]
8:04:32 AM    comment []

Toward a More Corporate Union of the Americas?. Here comes the Security and Prosperity Partnership, but -- what security? whose prosperity? [AlterNet.org]
8:03:01 AM    comment []

Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms.

The Senate today -- led by Jay Rockefeller, enabled by Harry Reid, and with the active support of at least 12 (and probably more) Democrats, in conjunction with an as-always lockstep GOP caucus -- will vote to legalize warrantless spying on the telephone calls and emails of Americans, and will also provide full retroactive amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, thus forever putting an end to any efforts to investigate and obtain a judicial ruling regarding the Bush administration's years-long illegal spying programs aimed at Americans. The long, hard efforts by AT&T, Verizon and their all-star, bipartisan cast of lobbyists to grease the wheels of the Senate -- led by former Bush 41 Attorney General William Barr and former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick -- are about to pay huge dividends, as such noble efforts invariably do with our political establishment.

It's worth taking a step back and recalling that all of this is the result of the December, 2005 story by the New York Times which first reported that the Bush administration was illegally spying on Americans for many years without warrants of any kind. All sorts of "controversy" erupted from that story. Democrats everywhere expressed dramatic, unbridled outrage, vowing that this would not stand. James Risen and Eric Lichtblau were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for exposing this serious lawbreaking. All sorts of Committees were formed, papers written, speeches given, conferences convened, and editorials published to denounce this extreme abuse of presidential power. This was illegality and corruption at the highest level of government, on the grandest scale, and of the most transparent strain.

What was the outcome of all of that sturm und drang? What were the consequences for the President for having broken the law so deliberately and transparently? Absolutely nothing. To the contrary, the Senate is about to enact a bill which has two simple purposes: (1) to render retroactively legal the President's illegal spying program by legalizing its crux: warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, and (2) to stifle forever the sole remaining avenue for finding out what the Government did and obtaining a judicial ruling as to its legality: namely, the lawsuits brought against the co-conspiring telecoms. In other words, the only steps taken by our political class upon exposure by the NYT of this profound lawbreaking is to endorse it all and then suppress any and all efforts to investigate it and subject it to the rule of law.

To be sure, achieving this took some time. When Bill Frist was running the Senate and Pat Roberts was in charge of the Intelligence Committee, Bush and Cheney couldn't get this done (the same FISA and amnesty bill that the Senate will pass today stalled in the 2006 Senate). They had to wait until the Senate belonged (nominally) to Harry Reid and, more importantly, Jay Rockefeller was installed as Committee Chairman, and then -- and only then -- were they able to push the Senate to bequeath to them and their lawbreaking allies full-scale protection from investigation and immunity from the consequences of their lawbreaking.

That's really the most extraordinary aspect of all of this, if one really thinks about it -- it isn't merely that the Democratic Senate failed to investigate or bring about accountability for the clearest and more brazen acts of lawbreaking in the Bush administration, although that is true. Far beyond that, once in power, they are eagerly and aggressively taking affirmative steps -- extraordinary steps -- to protect Bush officials. While still knowing virtually nothing about what they did, they are acting to legalize Bush's illegal spying programs and put an end to all pending investigations and efforts to uncover what happened.

How far we've come -- really: disgracefully tumbled -- from the days of the Church Committee, which aggressively uncovered surveillance abuses and then drafted legislation to outlaw them and prevent them from ever occurring again. It is, of course, precisely those post-Watergate laws which the Bush administration and their telecom conspirators purposely violated, and for which they are about to receive permanent, lawless protection.

What Harry Reid's Senate is about to do today would be tantamount to the Church Committee -- after discovering the decades of abuses of eavesdropping powers by various administrations -- proceeding in response to write legislation to legalize unchecked surveillance, bar any subjects of the illegal eavesdropping from obtaining remedies in court, and then pass a bill with no purpose other than to provide retroactive immunity for the surveillance lawbreakers. That would be an absurd and incomparably corrupt nonsequitur, but that is precisely what Harry Reid's Senate -- in response to the NYT's 2005 revelations of clear surveillance lawbreaking by the administration -- is going to do today.

Analogously, in 1973, The Washington Post won the Pulitzer Prize for its work in uncovering the Watergate abuses, and that led to what would have been the imminent bipartisan impeachment of the President until he was forced to resign in disgrace. By stark and depressing contrast, in 2006, Jim Risen, Eric Lichtblau and the NYT won Pulitzer Prizes for their work in uncovering illegal spying on Americans at the highest levels of the Government, and that led to bipartisan legislation to legalize the illegal spying programs and provide full-scale retroactive amnesty for the lawbreakers. That's the difference between a country operating under the rule of law and one that is governed by lawlessness and lawbreaking license for the politically powerful and well-connected.

Chris Dodd went to the Senate floor last night and gave another eloquent and impassioned speech, warning of the consequences for our country from telecom amnesty. He specifically focused on the permanently and comprehensively suppressive effect it will have on efforts to investigate what the Bush administration did in illegally spying on Americans.

At around 2:25, Sen. Dodd quoted from this blog (from this post specifically regarding last week's testimony of Michael Mukasey) concerning the consequences for our country from ensuring, as the Senate is about to do, that such blatant and deliberate governmental lawbreaking is protected and goes forever unpunished (h/t selise):



From Frank Church and the bipartisan oversight protections of the post-Watergate abuses in the mid-1970s to Jay Rockefeller, Dick Cheney, legalized warrantless eavesdropping and retroactive telecom amnesty in 2008 -- that vivid collapse into the sewer illustrates as potently as anything could what has happened to this country over the last eight years.

[Salon: Glenn Greenwald]
7:58:52 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2008 Patricia Thurston.
 
February 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29  
Jan   Mar


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.

Subscribe to "Patricia Thurston's Radio Weblog" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.