Donna Brazile Catches On to FDD

It took more than six years, but at least one Democrat enlisted after 9/11 by the hard-line neo-conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) seems finally to have caught on to the fact that its agenda is something other than what its name suggests. In a statement released by her office Monday, Democratic consultant and frequent television political commentator Donna Brazile “strongly condemn[ed]” what she called a “misleading and reckless ad campaign” undertaken against 17 Democratic lawmakers by the FDD for their opposition to the Protect America Act and resigned from its Board of Advisers.

“The organization is using fear mongering for political purposes and worse, their scare tactics have the effect of emboldening terrorists and our enemies abroad by asserting our intelligence agencies are failing to do their job. I am deeply disappointed they would use my name since no one has consulted me about the activities of the group in years.”

Of course, fear-mongering is exactly FDD’s stock in trade, as it has been from the very beginning, something of which Brazile unfortunately appears to unaware, claiming, as she does, that, “due to the influence of their funders, in the last few years, FDD has morphed into a radical right wing organization that is doing the dirty work for the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans.” If she had been paying attention, she would have seen from the moment she signed on that FDD’s messages — particularly concerning virtually anything from the Arab or Islamic worlds — were designed to create fear, starting with the TV ad that ran in 2002 which clearly sought to confuse the viewer into believing that somehow Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden were all part of the same threat. Indeed, FDD, the best profile for which is found on Right Web, has acted primarily as a front for the Likudist founders of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), the same group that is also behind the Freedom’s Watch about which I have posted here and here. Cliff May, FDD’s president since its founding Sep 13, 2001, served previously as RJC’s vice chair.

Might Brazile’s resignation prompt other self-identified Democrats, such as certified Friend of Bill (FOB) former Amb. Marc Ginsberg or Amb. Max Kampelman or Rep. Eliot Engel, to reconsider their own association with FDD (which, incidentally, also sponsors the Committee on the Present Danger)? (I won’t even mention the possibility that “Distinguished Advisors” Sen. Joseph Lieberman or James Woolsey might want to disassociate themselves, let alone Zell Miller.) How about Republicans who might be somewhat less partisan or less Likudnik in their policy preferences, like Jack Kemp, one of the two surviving members of FDD’s board of directors? (The other two are Steve Forbes and the late Jeane Kirkpatrick.) Or former Secretary of State George Shultz, who co-chairs the CPD along with Woolsey)? The full roster of FDD’s many boards, staff members and associates — already heavily weighted to the extreme right — can be found here.

What I found particularly intriguing about Brazile’s statement — other than her naivete about what FDD has been all along — was her assertion that FDD “would use my name since no one has consulted me about the activities of the group in years.” One would think that an organization dedicated to “defending democracies” would try to keep its associates, let alone its leadership, informed of its activities. But apparently that has not been the case. Also intriguing is the fact that she blames the group’s evolution on its the “influence of (its) funders” whose identities, however, she fails to disclose. In the interests of transparency — which all can agree are essential for democracy — perhaps the group will see fit to identify them.

Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service’s Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.

Author: Jim Lobe

Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service's Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.

52 thoughts on “Donna Brazile Catches On to FDD”

  1. Didn’t Brazile also sign a Project for the New American Century document sometime in the last two years?

    I was trying to do a web search to see.

    For those not up to speed, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) wrote a letter in September of 2000 called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that stated that an “attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor” against the U.S would be needed to launch its agenda of U.S./Israeli domination of the world.

    Signatories included Cheney, Wolfowitz, Zakheim, Perle, and just about every other neo-con allied to Israel/ the military/industrial complex.

    Sept. 11 “happened” almost exactly one year later with almost the same number of fatalities as Pearl Harbor.

    Coincidence? Antiwar.com seems to think so, which, to be completely honest, sometime makes me doubt its motives.

    1. PNAC, Planning, Strategy, Pre-conditions, “Why Saddam Must Go,” in the Weekly Standard October 1997 edition… Yes, these things have been systematically planned by the state for five decades and more.

      Planning 9-11? Not.

      1. Indeed, “thinking critically” might lead one to question whether asserting a claim that the US coordinated 9-11 is worth anything at all? Alas, one can’t expect critical thought from “true believers.”

      1. I never claimed that Donna Brazille signed that particular Project for A New American Century document. She did sign another one, about two years ago, just before they closed PNAC down. Well, obstensibly, obviously it still exists and is thriving.

        Again, has anyone called the FBI to find out why on their Most Wanted website Osama Bin Lade is not held responsible for 9/11.

        I gave you the contact information for the FBI — you readers of antiwar.com now have no excuses.

        Please let us all know what the FBI tells you — Optimist — do you have a telephone? Call the FBI and let us know why Osama Bin Laden is not officially blamed for the Sept 11 attacks.

        1. The obvious answer is that he was not indicted for 9/11 the way he was for the African embassy bombings. Pres. Cheney decided this was not a crime but an act of war.

          “Coincidence? Antiwar.com seems to think so, which, to be completely honest, sometime makes me doubt its motives.”

          Of course, all of us who disagree with you about 9/11 are in on it. Especially me.

        2. Calling the FBI to see why Osama hasn’t been indicted for felling the World Trade Center yields nothing at all.

          Nothing at all.

          Provided a direct quote from Chomsky. Read.

          Stop holding antiwarriors hostage to this specious claim, and move on to the hard work of winding down the slaughter in Iraq and resisting the coming advance into Iran, Syria, and points elsewhere. While your faction is stuck sawing on about the fact that the rest of us have moved on, there is bound to be more comeuppance. Don’t you think there are better things to do than force your suspicions down my throat? Have had that done enough, thank you.

    2. “Of course, all of us who disagree with you about 9/11 are in on it”

      To the contrary, most of the folks over at AW appear to be “out of it”, possessing an over inflated view of their ability to influence current events. They, for the most part, totally underestimate the evil of what they are up against…

      Even the despots realize that they must permit a bit of venting to maintain an equilibrium within their terrarium of fear and hate.

      1. Tim R. – Move west of the Caucasus, relax and get some perspective. You are lost in the dust.

        8Ball – Join the Marines and go kill some “evil.” Oooh-Rah! Better yet, go work in a developing country, return and tell us all that you have come to “know evil when you see it.”

        OH, BEFORE YOU GO, CALL THE FBI!!!! CALL THE FBI!!!! CALL THE FBI!!!! CALL THE FBI!!! OSAMA DIDNT FLY PLANES INTO THE TRADE CENTER!!! HE COULDN’T HAVE BEEN THERE WHILE TAKING DIALYSIS IN THE MOUNTAINS!!! DICK CHENEY’S ORPHANED BROTHER WAS AT THE WHEEL!!!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!

        DID I SAY CALL THE FBI!!!!

        Apologies.

      2. Rising before the U.S. House of Representatives on August 28, 1967, World War II veteran Physician/Congressman Tim Lee Carter (R-KY) stated:

        “Let us now, while we are yet strong, bring our men
        home, every man jack of them. The Vietcong fight fiercely and
        tenaciously because it is their land and we are foreigners intervening
        in their civil war. If we must fight, let us fight in defense of our
        homeland and our own hemisphere.”

        However, all hope is lost!! for: “the folks over at AW…possess an overinflated view of their ability to influence current events.”

        Phooey. Call upon your senators and congressmen–persistently, and en-masse–to defund this venture.

    3. Anitwar.com seems to me to turn a BLIND eye the 911 truth movement……I love Justin Raimondo the founder of that site, but i have always seem him fearful of that current third rail of American political discourse, 911 truth……Watching bush at booker school, or seeing the unbroken windows where the wings hit the facade at the Pentagon after the 757 struck going 512 MPH…The collapse of building 7 after Mr Silverstein agreed to “pull it” are things that really were never looked into….The 911 commission report was written by an administration political operative….Nothing 2C here….move…on…Move…on.. And Your last line…..doubt its motives?? Is this your way of implying that antiwar.com has a “hidden” agenda…..Perhaps it wants to undermine the contrivances of the war machine the U.S. has become……..or worse yet expose U.S. duplicity?

      1. Call the FBI!!! “9-11 Truth” is the Paramount ISSUE which renders all other issues INSUBORDINATE. Forget the looming WAR, members of the US Security Cabal might have conspired to hijack planes and down the Trade Center Towers? Run away! Run away!!

        There are institutions filled with people seeking to ascertain the powers behind the Kennedy assassination, too–and there is greater credence here. However, those who haven’t been institutionalized have yet to mount a solid lasting front to stall craven state tendencies toward gunboat diplomacy and mass murder for territorial conquest.

        Again, weigh the relevance. Do you think urging a US Congressman to investigate administrative complicity in destroying the world trade center will gain you a seat before a congressman actually able to de-fund the current war? Not likely.

  2. Well, I have new respect for her. Very impressive and gutsy. She didn’t pull any punches.

    (On the other hand, isn’t it pathetic that one feels so grateful and full of admiration when a major, ostensibly “liberal” public figure announces her understanding of a political reality that should long ago have been obvious?)

  3. Donna Brazile talks about “fear mongering.” Obama talks about the “politics of fear.” Well, let me tell them something: I know a little bit about real fear. I was getting of the subway in lower Manhattan at about 9am on a bright Tuesday morning in 2001. I think I know a little bit about fear–the fear on people’s faces, the screaming, the odor of burning metal and chemicals of what used to be the World Trade Center, the fear of being trapped and not being able to get home, the fear of what was coming next.

    I’m sick and tired of people like Brazile and Obama talking about “fear mongering.” I still live in New York, a city with a big fat bullseye on it, target number one for the Islamic terrorists. I think I have a RIGHT to my fears. I think my fears are reasonable and well-founded. And I want and fully expect and demand that my government use all the means at their disposal, including economic, diplomatic, technological, law enforcement, and military operations to protect me from these blood thirsty Islamic terrorists.

    I say thank God for the Patriot Act. Thank God for wire tapping. I say it is about time. How many more Americans have to be murdered before people like Brazile get their heads out of the sand? When, heaven forfend, a mushroom cloud explodes above a major American city or an anthrax or chemical attack kills HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS or maybe even millions, will Brazile and her friends still be babbling on about “fear mongering.”

    Hannah Arendt once said ” Fear is an emotion indispensable for survival.”

    So don’t tell me my fears are unfounded until you have stood in my shoes!

    1. My prescription is that Mr. Roth go and live in Gaza for a year–and see how he feels about fear, fear, fear then…

    2. “I say thank God for the Patriot Act. Thank God for wire tapping. I say it is about time.”

      Every dictatorship, every far-right or far-left government, and every tyranny has depended on a certain segment of their population believing just as Tim does. Many call them the useful idiots, I call them just plain gullible and those most likely to lap at the fountain of propaganda.

      I caught that fear-mongering commercial while watching CNN last night. It screams everything that is wrong with America today. In no other Western democracy are such political messages used let alone tolerated. The far right of the Conservative movement in America is morally and ethically bankrupt if all they have left is fear. But like the fable of boy who cried wolf, their message is losing its meaning to all but the most ready to accept it – those like Tim.

    3. Oh phooey. I lived in NYC at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and I saw them from my window (not as close as you — about 20 blocks north and 20 floors up.

      And yes, I sure as hell felt fear. A lot of it. But you know what? After researching the matter, I concluded that what was putting me in danger was our government’s longstanding, violently rapacious, and insanely Israel-centric, racist, murderous foreign policy.

      If you only look honestly at the matter, the sole question is, what the hell took them so long?

      Just imagine how long Americans would peaceably endure the sh!t that the US and Israel do to Arabs and Muslims?

      Would Americans, if powerless to strike back with a conventional military, refrain from blowing up buildings in cities?

      Even if most Americans were sweetly unwilling to go that far — out of the profound regard for the sanctity of life for which we are so well known — how long would it take for a mad master planner to find 19 young guys willing to take out Mecca in a blaze of glory, damn the ‘collateral damage’?

      Ron Paul has it right: they hit us over here because we have been pounding them over there like hell for decades, and aiding and abetting and fawning all over Israel as it does the same and worse.

      I’m tired of being afraid. I’m tired of being told that we can’t make the world a less dangerous place, by making ourselves less hated. I’m tired of being told that our suicidal support of Israel must continue and ever escalate, and that the only way to be safer is to increase the application of violence against any peoples or countries which threaten Israel’s grand plans for territorial expansion and brutal domination of others.

        1. From your twin brother Eric: “how long would it take for a mad master planner to find 19 young guys willing to take out Mecca in a blaze of glory, damn the ‘collateral damage’?”

        2. So you think the Islamic fantics war on western civilization should simply be viewed as a police matter? We tried that. They bombed the world trade center in 1993. We arrested people, tried them and convicted them. And what happend? They kept attacking us throughout the 1990′ and we kept treating it as a criminal justice matter. And then 9/11 happened. These people don’t exist in isolation. We are not fighting mere criminals.

          We are at war with a fanatical, murderous idea; namely, radical Islam. Call the FBI and have them put Bin Laden on the most wanted list? What would that do? Kill Bin Laden tomorrow and a hundred more Bin Ladens will turn up. That would be like FDR telling J. Edgar Hoover it was his responsibility to hunt down and bring to justice those who attacked us on Dec. 7 1941. You can’t just fight the symptoms, you have to search out and destroy this disease at its roots. And the roots are radical Islamic theology and the nations that promulgate that theology. It is a cult of death, that indoctrinates and brainwashes mothers into sending their kids off to kill and to commit suicide for “Allah.”

        3. Tim, this crudely theological account of history elides any relevant data. A few months back I referred to Robert Pape’s study, which showed an extremely weak correlation between the presence of fundamentalist Islam and suicide bombings. It must be reiterated that radical Islam has nothing to do with it, save that it has displaced nationalism as the political vehicle of essentially national grievances.

        4. On thinking critically:

          Above, c.o.broad (a woman!!!) agrees wholeheartedly with her self-identified “twin” brother Eric’s statement:

          “Would Americans, if powerless to strike back with a conventional military, refrain from blowing up buildings in cities?…— how long would it take for a mad master planner to find 19 young guys willing to take out Mecca in a blaze of glory, damn the ‘collateral damage’?”

          Eric’s statement directly contradicts cobroad’s outlandish thesis that a single mastermind on dialysis in the mountains could not have coordinated an attack taking advantage of America’s unique-in-the-world false sense of security related to commercial planes. Given the motivation, a sixteen year old high schooler with flight simulator training–of the type that wiped out Columbine could have coordinated the same effort prior to security enhancements at US airports–which still go lacking.

          For ten years prior to 9-11 Ralph Nader lobbied the federal government to install steel security doors on commercial airliners.

          Should we view the failure of the feds to heed Nader’s warning as a conspiracy against us? CALL THE FBI!!!! CALL THE FBI!!!!

        5. Tim: – “Radical Islam”

          The groups fighting to drive the US from the Middle East–their territory since millennia–do so out of response to American (and British) incursion into their territory. Our long record of mayhem and death foisted upon their elected governments dating back one hundred years is not lost and forgotten upon the vast number of marginalized people in the Middle East.

          The brutalized do not soon forget the brutality forced upon them. Hence the World Trade Center bombings; hence the felling of the Twin Towers–the centers of finance responsible for forcibly extracting their natural resources by means of constructing friendly family-client dictatorships (El Saud, etc.); hence the symbolism behind taking out the Pentagon.

          Choices:

          1. Alter foreign policy, allowing for democratic elections and the sprouting of civil society, providing America access to oil reserves through competitive bidding (for now, we retain the means to outbid the rest of the modernizing world).

          2. Brutalize, terrorize, and subjugate the entire population of the Middle East by means of military force; annihilate the opposition (two million deaths in Iraq in the past fifteen years of US military presence alone); and erect family-sectarian based client -dictatorships sympathetic to the hydrocarbon needs of Americans.

          For more than fifty years, betraying our own founding tradition of rebellion against state-tyranny, the U.S. has chosen the latter.

          Hence, we have, and will continue to reap, violent reaction–all the more dangerous in the era of transportation, engineering, and modern biology/chemistry.

          Answer: revert to Choice 1.

  4. We just killed/ wounded a few million Muslims/ Christians, etc., in the Middle East, who were completely innocent of an attack on America.

    Killing them made us safer (NOT) according to our government — that makes sense to me (NOT) — you kill my child/ /mother and I’ll spread rose petals in front of you when you invade my country(NOT)

    Tim R, Get your head out of your a*s. Were it not for Israel, and her enablers in the U.S., there would be no “War on Terror” — there would be no destruction of our Bill of Rights and our economy.

    Anyone who supports another country’s interests above the interests of the people of the United States of America should get the hell out of here PRONTO.

    I’m looking at you Congress + the Bush/ Clinton/ Clinton/ Bush/ Bush administrations + the mainstream U.S. media.

    We are in the fight of our lives for our lives, and the pro-Israel/ pro- military/industrial complex / anti-Bill of Rights saboteurs, are doing their best to stifle our fight for freedom.

    “Anti-Semite” is a useless work used uselessly and endlessly. It doesn’t work anymore except on people of the same infantile mental capacity as those who supported Stalin and Hitler.

    Why should we be subjected to humiliating searches at the airport when anyone who wanted to do harm can just cross the border? Because 3000 or so people died on one horrible day in September we give up the freedoms that our ancestors fought for?

    And we still don’t know who was behind September 11, but we do know that Israeli spies were arrested, held and then allowed to be repatriated?

    I call BULL F**king SH*T on the whole “War on Terror” — get Israel out of U.S. foreign policy, stick to working on our own country’s problems.

    To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin “Those who give up freedom for security soon have neither.”

    To paraphrase George Washington “Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.”

    By enabling Israel and her endless wars we have destroyed our relationship with the entire world, not just the Arab/ Persian/ South Asian world.

    We have also destroyed the most precious document ever written, the Bill of Rights.

    Way past time to cut that tie with Israel and the military/industrial complex off, the future of the world is at stake.

    1. I am sick and tired of people saying that we have “destroyed the Bill of Rights.” Poppycock! Too many are ignorant of history. Get some historical perspective before using this sort of hyperbole.

      Abraham Lincoln, without the consent of Congress, suspended Habeas Corpus and locked up newspaper editors and others who were not supportive of his positions. And yet the Bill of Rights survived and we revere Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents.

      Woodrow Wilson and his attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, rounded up thousands of people, sometimes without cause, and deported anyone with ties to “subversive” organizations. And yet somehow the Bill of Rights is still around.

      Franklin Roosevelt rounded up tens of thousands of Japanese Americans in the name of national security. His actions were later upheld by the Supreme Court. And yet somehow the Bill of Rights survived. Too many are ignorant of history. Get some historical perspective before spouting this sort of hyperbole.

      Bill Clinton, in 1996, signed a law that greatly limited the writ of Habeas Corpus and appeals in federal courts. And yet somehow the Bill of Rights has survived.

      So stop acting like George Bush has done anything more than other Presidents have. His actions look very mild and benign and pale in comparison to what other Presidents have done. The Bill of Rights has survived, unchanged since 1791, and they are not going anywhere. If you want something to really worry about, worry about the erosion of our borders, language and culture. That is where the real danger lies.

      1. Abraham Lincoln, without the consent of Congress, suspended Habeas Corpus and locked up newspaper editors and others who were not supportive of his positions. And yet the Bill of Rights survived and we revere Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents.

        Abraham Lincoln had a legal justification: Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution stipulates that Habeas Corpus may only be suspended under conditions of rebellion or invasion, neither of which are met by present circumstances. For a law student, you seem woefully unacquainted with some fairly basic aspects of American jurisprudence.

        Woodrow Wilson and his attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, rounded up thousands of people, sometimes without cause, and deported anyone with ties to “subversive” organizations. And yet somehow the Bill of Rights is still around.

        Franklin Roosevelt rounded up tens of thousands of Japanese Americans in the name of national security. His actions were later upheld by the Supreme Court. And yet somehow the Bill of Rights survived. Too many are ignorant of history. Get some historical perspective before spouting this sort of hyperbole.

        Bill Clinton, in 1996, signed a law that greatly limited the writ of Habeas Corpus and appeals in federal courts. And yet somehow the Bill of Rights has survived.

        None of these are valid comparisons since they do not codify a permanent abrogation of Habeas Corpus, as the Military Commissions Act does. Wilson, Roosevelt, and Clinton did not establish entirely separate legal circuits for dealing with alleged wrongdoers, as Bush has done. Nor did they effectively annul the Fourth Amendment. In short, the Military Commissions Act, and its cognate, the PATRIOT Act, have no precedent, and amount to a piecemeal dismantling of the Bill of Rights.

        1. Summation:

          Tim R. reveals himself as a member of Samuel Huntington’s “certain secret society,” and falls forthright upon his face with his adulation of locking up both loyal German-Americans and Japanese-Americans, and subjecting entire populations (including American citizens) to permanent imprisonment and ritual physical and psychological torture.

          Thankfully Kenneth stands Tim R.’s skullduggery on its’ head, illustrating the vast, and permanent departure from the Bill of Rights that are the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act.

          For Tim R. to defend George Bush for failing to stoop to the level of his predecessors, reaches out to the lowest common denominator, and offers no defense at all.

          Further, suspending Habeus Corpus indefinitely, and permanently–as is the case with the permanent War on Terrorism–imparts extraordinary powers upon the retrograde and regenerate regime currently at helm, not to mention it undermines the honor of military servicemen and Americans seeking to do business in an interdependent world. Maybe Tim R. should volunteer for a permanent vacation in a Turkish prison–if he would have America emulate such an end.

          One cannot defend the indefensible.

        2. Kenneth and Optimist:

          Kenny, ole boy, I’m not a law student, graduated several years ago. Now you want to insult me and say I don’t know American jurisprudence? Get a copy of Article One of the Constitution. It deals exclusively with the powers of CONGRESS, not the executive. Lincoln did not have the power to suspend Habeas, only Congress has that power under Art. 1 Sec. 8. In your haste to prove me wrong you seem to have missed the boat on this one. Article Two deals with the Powers of the President and it certainly did not give Lincoln the power to suspend Habeas Corpus.

          Also, the law Bill Clinton signed in 1996 did in fact codify a major limitation on habeas corpus. It is still on the books and was certainly just as permanent as the Military Commissions Act. And in fact it goes much further and applies to US Citizens.

          But you only want to lambaste George Bush and pretend he is so awful. Well, history and facts tell a different story. Bush’s actions pale in comparison to other Presidents. So go read up on history and Constitutional law, get better informed and then let’s talk.

        3. The list of ‘Islamists’ attack on USA is a really long one: One in 1993 and the other one in 2001. A total of two attacks in our long history of 232 years. The guy who did the 1993 bombing got caught and punished and those who did 2001 attack died in the process. Seven year later the war-mongers still claim to be scared. Neither the people of Afghanistan nor the people of Iraq had anything to do with the two bombings, but the war-mongers found it OK to ‘shock and awe’ them. Only God knows how many we have killed and how many of our soldiers have died or got injured in the process. Now, the fear-mongers want us to be afraid of AlQaida which is nothing more than two people hiding in mountain caves who issue videos every six month — Properly timed to help the Bush administration. To capture the two they want to attack pakistan, instantly increasing the size of our enemies to 160 Million. Who in his right mind would do that? But, if the purpose is a perpetual war through ‘clash of civilization’ then this strategy makes perfect sense.

        4. Tim’s right. George is NOT SO BAD. We should all aim for mediocrity and elect politicians with mendacious tendencies.

          Indeed, the president of the United States (Lincoln, Clinton, Bush) has no influence over congress, particularly in times of war, and thus could not possibly urge a departure from Habeus Corpus, whatever the Article.

          Indeed, Bill Clinton did urge a permanent departure, and it pales in comparison to the erosion of rights that have been the fruit of the Bush administration. And, since Hillary seems a shrinking violet, and Bill’s been out seven years, what exactly is the relevance, except to lament the follow-on opportunism of the current regime and to urge the restoration and revitalization of the Bill of Rights prior to a permanent calamity?

          But we’re not talking partisan politics here–just advocating a departure from the scourge of permanent war.

        5. Kenny, ole boy, I’m not a law student, graduated several years ago. Now you want to insult me and say I don’t know American jurisprudence? Get a copy of Article One of the Constitution. It deals exclusively with the powers of CONGRESS, not the executive. Lincoln did not have the power to suspend Habeas, only Congress has that power under Art. 1 Sec. 8. In your haste to prove me wrong you seem to have missed the boat on this one. Article Two deals with the Powers of the President and it certainly did not give Lincoln the power to suspend Habeas Corpus.

          Tim, my argument still stands. The only way your stale examples could be valid referents would be if the change had been legislated; failing this, your contention is moot- the alterations do not merely suspend Habeas Corpus; they abolish it altogether. Before you attempt to put words in my mouth, try to identify the real issue.

          Also, the law Bill Clinton signed in 1996 did in fact codify a major limitation on habeas corpus. It is still on the books and was certainly just as permanent as the Military Commissions Act. And in fact it goes much further and applies to US Citizens.

          Excellent. More ammunition to use against the idiots who insist that the Democrats represent a real alternative to the Republicans.

          But you only want to lambaste George Bush and pretend he is so awful.

          Not in the least. George Bush is the object of our discussion and therefore the one to be analyzed and judged here. If you want to write a polemic against Bill Clinton, be my guest- the man doesn’t deserve the halo that mainstream Democrats place over his head.

          Bush’s actions pale in comparison to other Presidents.

          No they don’t, for reasons amply outlined above.

          So go read up on history and Constitutional law, get better informed and then let’s talk.

          Why don’t you follow your own advice? You’ve no idea what it is like to be an adolescent on the receiving end of utter drivel from a credentialed adult sullying a site otherwise remarkable for its cogency. What your latest fabulation proves is that you are either dishonest, dumb, or selectively cognizant.

  5. So Donna rides high for a half-dozen years, rubbing elbows with the high-and-mighty, getting invites to the best insider cocktail parties and chatting up the really big PR accounts – those fronting for clients needing all the ornamentation they can get. Then, when the bloom is off the neocon rose for all those Levantine catastrophes, she’s shocked – SHOCKED – to discover she’s hooked up to FEARMONGERS! Ahh… we should be so lucky to have more brave, righteous power surfers like Donna… oh… wait… we DO have more of her ilk. They riddle and rot our government and media.

    NEVER MIND!

  6. No, Donna Brazile did not sign that 2000 PNAC document either, nor any others. But in addition to the original 25 PNAC signatories, here are 200 more who have been signing on and supporting the goals of the PNAC, ‘good’ people like Madeleine Albright who felt a half million Iraqi children dead from sanctions was worth it, for example.

    http://www.freedomcentralusa.com/PNAC_Signatories.html

  7. This just in from AntiWar:

    “Senate Republicans on Tuesday helped advance a Democratic-pushed bill to cut off money for the war in Iraq, saying the additional debating time would allow them to hail progress there.”

    Action plan for activists: write/lobby your Republican/Democratic senators now. Laud them for the so-called “progress,” and call for de-funding.

    De-funding the war, through Congress (a window of opportunity is a time of economic uncertainty-NOW), is the way to end it.

  8. Is it just me, or has anyone else ever wondered how “Israeli businessmen” always seem to buy American high tech companies (glaringly obvious in telecommunications, but not limited to) and are also involved in many international media companies? Israel is the size of New Jersey, with the population of South Carolina. It must truly be the land of opportunity. How else can you explain so much capital going abroad to buy such sensitive assetts, especially when the US taxpayer funds so much of modern Israeli life. Just wondering.

    1. Uhhh… How to avoid mischaracterization?

      Owning telecommunications and media companies (the means to consolidate and filter information) would be the logical step toward seeking to control foreign and domestic policy discussion.

      “Communications” affords owners a box-seat in the codification of history.

      However, many different business and private interests invest in media and telecommunications companies. And conspiracy theories (especially those based upon “racial” and religious classifications) offer little to productive debate.

      To give credit to the “Israeli businessmen” referred to, if they are indeed invested heavily in American high-tech, they are some damn savvy investors–particularly considering the stakes involved.

  9. I can’t shake the suspicion that much of the conspiracy freakery we see on the web is a false flag stunt, purposely put in play to dampen the resurgence of individual liberties. How many recruits has the anti imperial and libertarian memeset lost because a person, while looking for a solution set to a mean case of cognitive dissonance, came across Ockham’s Razor defying nonsense like “call the FBI and ask them a zinger about OBL’s wanted poster! That’ll show ’em! And it’s PROOF they were in on it!”?

    1. There is no need to call the FBI because they have already addressed the question:

      “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
      –Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI

      When authoritarians like the above poster use the term “conspiracy” as a pejorative, the purpose is to stifle debate and to make sure nobody veers from the official narrative of the events.

      It’s an idiotic use of the term. Prisons are full of people convicted of conspiracy. History is one long string of conspiracies, including many carried out by governments in order to provide a public pretext for war. The Bush/Cheney 9/11 narrative so eagerly and unquestioningly lapped up by posters like the above is in fact a conspiracy theory. Has anybody even once heard those who are so found of throwing around the label “conspiracy theory” to enforce official narratives of events apply it to a conspiracy theory put out by the government? Are we really supposed to believe that our government never engages in conspiracies?

      As for Ockham’s razor, the conspiracy theory that the above poster believes in requires that only a couple of dozen poorly trained Islamic radicals deftly maneuvered undetected through the world’s most powerful and well-funded intelligence gathering and military machine. One of these Islamic radicals, who couldn’t fly a Cessna according to his instructor and had no hours in type, pulled off an acrobatic stunt that professional pilots with many hours in type have said would be difficult even for them to pull off. This was after flying around unmolested for 90 minutes in the most defended, monitored and congested airspace on the planet and apparently sneaking up on the Pentagon. Did somebody forget to plug in the anti-missile anti-aircraft capacity battery at the Pentagon the night before?

      As if the same task wouldn’t have been easier to accomplish for a similar number of people to do so, employing many unknowing others for secondary, compartmented tasks, if those handful with full knowledge of the plan also knew every aspect of the U.S. intelligence and military machine, and were in key positions governing its activities and responses. Ockham’s razor indeed.

      Even if the conspiracy involved the devout Islamic radicals that the 9/11 commission would have us believe (who evidently had a penchant for alcohol, cocaine and strippers according to witnesses in Florida)–given all the many historical precedents–is it really so outside the realm of possibility that they might have had a little help from those who had a tremendous amount to gain from a “War on Terror” that “wouldn’t end in our lifetimes?”

      Norman Mineta in testimony before the Warren… err.. I mean 9/11 Commission (Mineta has recently confirmed that this was in reference to the plane that hit the Pentagon):

      “There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, ‘The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to, ‘The plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the vice president, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'”

      How odd that the 9/11 commission never followed up on this testimony and neglected to mention it in their report.

      1. The “optimist” reminds me of the congested mathemetician who worked out his problem with a pencil, except O’s pencil is stuck in his ear… He should read the AW feature article from Tuesday. Go to bed at night and keep telling yourself that the people that run America and Wall Street, along with all of those clever Israeli “businessmen”, care about you and your family…

        1. Perhaps 8Ball would benefit by taking the theoretical dead-ender righteous philosophical pencil from his ear, to turn his attention instead to practical ends, rather than confining his antidisestablishmentarian drivel to the cyberspace netherworld.

          To him, nothing can change–so one might as well just roll up into a ball. Such efforts are well suited to cows. Incidentally, just as Tim Lee was my family (great uncle), and his nephew (no friend of the Vietnam misadventure) became chairman of defense contractor General Dynamics (nuke subs), and his sister (my great grandmother, no fan of Vietnam) served as a member of the Eisenhower administration, history shows that congressional leaders are susceptible and responsive to reason and to public pressure–and can effect foreign policy change. But then, these people had larger cohones than 8Ball, who cowers before his gods on Wall Street and “Israeli businessmen.”

          Take the “family” derogatory and sit hard upon it.

  10. Donna Brazile is sort of a dummy. Okay, she’s comprehensively stupid and a shade corrupt. Any darn poser in Babylon D.C. can sign their name to just about any silly think tank as long as the money is sufficient. Golly, what does a “good” Donna Brazile endorsement sell for these days?

Comments are closed.