Halperin: Dem president will "have a come-to-Jesus moment" when Bush and Cheney tell them "what's on the line every day"
On the October 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, while discussing Democratic presidential candidates' positions on terrorism, Time political analyst Mark Halperin asserted that if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Sen. Barack Obama (IL), or former Sen. John Edwards (NC) "get[s] in" to the White House, "I think they're going to have a come-to-Jesus moment where they sit down with Dick Cheney and George Bush." Host Bill O'Reilly interjected, "And change their minds." Halperin continued: "And get a little bit of an eye-opening about just what's on the line every day in that job now, post 9-11 -- how hard it is." O'Reilly then turned to Democratic strategist Liz Chadderdon and asked whether she would be "very disappointed" if this happened. He added: "You don't want aggressive action against the terrorists, do you?"
O'Reilly later asserted, "But if I'm the GOP, all day long, I'm going after that terror warrior concept." Halperin responded: "Don't worry. The minute the Democrat gets in, if the Democrats win, they're going to see some things they're not expecting."
Further, during the "Talking Points Memo" segment of the show, O'Reilly stated that the "Democratic Party can easily be branded soft on terrorism," and asserted: "[N]o way Edwards will ever win the presidential election. Kid Rock has a better chance."
From the October 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: So, just talking about your personal security, would you support President John Edwards? Remember, no coerced interrogation, civilian lawyers in courts for captured overseas terrorists, no branding the Iranian guards terrorists, and no phone surveillance without a specific warrant.
"Talking Points" believes most Americans reject that foolishness. And it has become a problem for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama is much closer to the Edwards' view than Senator Clinton is, but the Democratic Party can easily be branded as soft on terrorism. It's tough to make distinctions in this area.
Six years after 9-11, I am simply amazed at how soft some Americans have become when it comes to confronting the jihadist killers. This isn't a game. This is life or death -- and the cemeteries here in the New York area prove it. Again, no way Edwards will ever win the presidential election. Kid Rock has a better chance.
But just the fact that his misguided view of the world is so attractive to the left media and others is disturbing, to say the least. And that's the "Memo."
[...]
O'REILLY: Ms. Chadderdon, what I think the GOP is going to do, and you see it with Rudy Giuliani already primarily, and Mitt Romney will take up the drum as well, is say, look, these people aren't going to protect you against terrorists. They're all a bunch of touchy-feely liberals. They're not going to do anything. They live in a world of theory. And you're going to be danger. And Osama bin Laden has a John Edwards bumper sticker on his cave wall. I mean, that's what they're going to do, are they not?
CHADDERDON: Well, you know, if that's what they do, then I think we're actually going to beat them worse than I think we're already going to beat them. I mean, the bottom line here is that no one is trying to make it easier for terrorists. And no one is trying to make America less safe.
But frankly, the Bush-Cheney administration has made this country less safe by forging into a war that has done nothing but create more terrorists.
O'REILLY: All right. So, you're going to go back to the Iraq battlefield. You know -- and I understand why the Democrats are going to do that. I don't know if that's going to resonate. Things seem to be getting better in Iraq.
But you said something very interesting: "The Democratic Party is going to make us safer." You believe that the Democratic Party would make us safer in the world? How can then you explain a vote against branding the Revolutionary Guards in Iran non-terrorists? How can you explain a vote like that?
These are terrorists all day long. Everybody knows it. Yet, Obama voted against this. Did Hillary vote against it? I'm not even sure. Did she vote against it? Did she?
HALPERIN: She voted for it. Obama didn't vote, but said he would have voted against it.
O'REILLY: OK, so we got Edwards and Obama, Liz, not wanting to brand this terrible organization terrorists; Clinton playing it more conservatively. So, I mean, how can you tell the American people that that's a smart vote?
CHADDERDON: Well, because as you pointed out at the beginning of your show, part of the wording in that vote was aggressive action. That's just Bush-Cheney code for wanting to invade Iran. And the last thing that anyone wants to do is give this out-of-control administration free rein to go invade another country and drag us into another huge war.
O'REILLY: All right. So you think the Democratic candidates are going to tell the American people that even if Iran continues its misbehavior, develops a nuclear weapon, tries to dominate the Persian Gulf, we're not going to take aggressive action against them. Is that what the Democratic Party's going to do?
CHADDERDON: At this point, I think that America is smarter than to realize that going into another no-win war is the right thing to do, and --
O'REILLY: OK, so we can't defeat Iran then. Is that what you're saying? Is that -- the Democratic candidates are going to get up there and say --
CHADDERDON: I don't think we can --
O'REILLY: -- "Look, we're afraid of them. We can't defeat them." You think that's a winner?
CHADDERDON: That's ridiculous. No one is saying that we can't defeat them. What we're saying --
O'REILLY: You just said it's a no-win war. Why would it be ridiculous?
CHADDERDON: Are we winning the war in Iraq?
O'REILLY: I don't know.
CHADDERDON: How long we been there? We've been in the war in Iraq --
O'REILLY: I mean, I know we're not losing it.
CHADDERDON: -- longer than we were in World War II, and we don't seem to be winning there.
O'REILLY: All right. I think you might want to rethink that. I think if a Democratic candidate, Mark, gets up there and says, "We can't win a war in Iran," that's a loser [inaudible].
HALPERIN: Democrats would go for broke, Bill, no matter who the nominee is. They're going to say their policies are going to keep America safer. That they can --
O'REILLY: What policies? What's John Edwards' anti-terror policy? What is it?
HALPERIN: He's got a couple things he's talked about. I could tell you if you want. But you're right. You're right.
O'REILLY: No, no, no. Give me his big one. What's John Edwards' anti-terror policy? What is it?
HALPERIN: He's for better communication with countries --
O'REILLY: Ah, better communication -- that'll do it.
HALPERIN: -- with countries around the world for coordinating intelligence. That's one of the things he's for. But you're right. He's basically got a critique saying, "Bush is wrong on Guantanamo" --
O'REILLY: Yeah.
HALPERIN: "Bush is wrong on" --
O'REILLY: This is bad, this is bad --
HALPERIN: This is bad.
O'REILLY: This is bad.
HALPERIN: That may work to help him in the Democratic Party. I think you're right, in the general election, he'd be opening himself up to attacks.
O'REILLY: Well, you know --
HALPERIN: But let me say one more thing. If he did get in or if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I think they're going to have a come-to-Jesus moment where they sit down with Dick Cheney and George Bush --
O'REILLY: And change their minds.
HALPERIN: -- and get a little bit of an eye-opening about just what's on the line every day in that job now, post-9-11 -- how hard it is.
O'REILLY: But Liz would be very disappointed if the come-to-Jesus moment happens, wouldn't you, Liz? You don't want aggressive action against the terrorists, do you?
CHADDERDON: I don't want to see more young men and women dying for reasons that we, at this point, simply can't explain. That's what I don't want to see.
O'REILLY: Do you think the jihadists want to kill a soldier? Do you think that Iran is in bed with these people and they want to cause damage to America?
CHADDERDON: I think our behavior, like torture, and kidnapping, and waterboarding, has definitely led to the creation of more terrorists.
O'REILLY: OK, so it's our fault?
CHADDERDON: I think we've made it worse, yes.
O'REILLY: OK. Now you really think that some presidential candidate running on a platform that the war on terror is our fault is going to win? You really believe that?
CHADDERDON: No. What I'm saying is, is that by continuing the Bush-Cheney policies of torture and kidnapping and not allowing counsel to those victims in Guantanamo is not the American way. If we're going to say we're the greatest country in the world, then we need to act like it.
O'REILLY: OK. Well, I think it's a loser, Liz, but I'm going to give Mark the last word. I mean, if I'm going to take what Liz just said to me, and I'm going to tell the American people that we don't really have a plan to fight terrorism other than communication -- that's our plan.
You know, we're a torture nation -- and we're bad. And we really brought a lot of this terrorism on ourself. Mark, do you really believe that that candidate's going to win?
HALPERIN: You and Liz both went right at the reality, though. In this election, Iraq is going to trump that. If there's not another terrorist attack, the Democrats are going to be able to say, "You didn't know how to handle Iraq, therefore you don't know how to handle the war on terror."
A negative critique just the way the Republicans critique the Democrats' health-care plan is mostly a negative critique. It could work.
O'REILLY: Yeah.
HALPERIN: It might be enough.
O'REILLY: Might be enough. But if I'm the GOP, all day long, I'm going after that terror warrior concept.
HALPERIN: Don't worry, the minute the Democrat gets in, if the Democrats win --
O'REILLY: Yeah.
HALPERIN: -- they're going to see some things they're not expecting.
It's certainly a lot easier to criticize the current situation...when you don't have to really make the decision...Halperin has hit it right on the head.
It's also easier when the situation isn't one of your own making.
Why didn't the Bush administration have a come to Jebus moment when the outgoing Clinton administration warned them of the level of the terrorism threat? Why was Clarke ignored for months when he wanted to discuss this threat?
The record shows that the Clinton administration considered Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as bigger threats than al Qaeda.
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000725wc.pdf
Koza,
Should they have attacked Iraq? Thoughts and actions are different.
Many believe that President Clinton or President Gore would have also invaded Iraq after 9/11. Here's an exchange between Ted Koppel and Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press in 2005:
MR. RUSSERT: And they (Sens. Kennedy and Byrd) were not questioning whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.MR. BROKAW: No. No. No.MR. RUSSERT: That seemed to be a uniformly held belief.MR. BROKAW: Right. Yeah.MR. KOPPEL: Nor did the Clinton administration beforehand.MR. BROKAW: No.MR. KOPPEL: I mean, the only difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration was 9/11.MR. BROKAW: Right.MR. KOPPEL: If 9/11 had happened on Bill Clinton's watch, he would have gone into Iraq.MR. BROKAW: Yeah. Yeah.[1][1] [link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
They would have gone into Iraq? Why?
Honestly, Koza, I could care less about what an anchorman thought a President would or would not do. Got any policy people for this one?
How big a threat is Al Qaeda, strategically speaking? Set aside the "Post 9/11" jingoism for a moment, and look at it logically. Al Qaeda, for all practical purposes, is a criminal network. They are a threat, to be sure...but they are not a threat to our national survival. They cannot defeat our army in a stand up fight. They cannot invade our country. They cannot take over our government. They can murder our citizens, and attack our soldiers, but they pose no bigger threat to our national survival than the drug cartels or the mafia.
And, yes, we can fight them without invading and occupying third world countries. It just requires a little intelligence and imagination...two commodities conspicuously lacking in the current White House.
Some time ago I tried to find out the facts about Al Qaeda, and came up with virtually nothing. I asked if they had 300, 3000 0r 30000 members? I found no facts about them. How can they be such a formidable, scary adversary if they're just a shadowy phantom? Such a shadowy phantom is great for propaganda purposes, but we in the U.S. aren't afraid of much once it is known and understood, and we have a history of mobilizing to combat that which threatens to destroy our way of life. I have begun to conclude that governments use the word "Al Qaeda" to scare us so we'll do whatever they want. It is important to remember that, if we had made the cockpit doors more secure and armed our pilots, 9/11 would probably never have happened. So I agree with the assessment here that the only plots we've uncovered, thus far, seem to be perpetrated by inept, fragmented groups and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Five years is too long not to know much about such a so-called important enemy; the intelligence people and the Administration that brings them out of the closet to scare us - we need to fire them and replace them with more effective people who can tell us the truth about "Al Qaeda".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that terrorism/Bin Laden didn't even make the "Top 5" of threats as perceived by the incoming Bush administration? Not to mention that Bush doesn't spend that much time on it (whether or not Bin Laden has been captured)! Even though Bin Laden was wanted "Dead Or Alive" at some point in time, I'm sure in the end it's all Clinton's fault somehow!
Yeah, bang-up job by Bush & Cheney so far...
The only thing Halperin seems to have "hit...right on the head" is himself -- again and again.
Just like its easy to send those to war who aren't you or related eh?
This is the same "if you knew what we know" crap that proved to be a lie just before the Iraq war. What is it that this administration knows that they aren't telling select senators in closed meetings right now? (Aside from their crimes.)
It's pure right wing B.S.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Wesley, lets pretend that you believe this explanation of allowing spying on Americans without any sort of oversight of the Administration.
That you believe that invading Iraq which diverted the main body of military resourses away from Afghanistan, not to mention the trillion dollars we're spending for little if any security.
That you believe that our behavior post 9/11 in the world of rendition, torture, Guantanamo detainees, our posturing with Iran whom could very easily be a strong ally, and is a ally in the war in Afghanistan before and after the invasion on their western boarder of Iraq.
That you actually believe all these things, then ridile me this, what have been the results of these policies? Where is the security?? Where is the flowers, and spices??
Tell me that had a President, not a Unitary Executive, had a President announced that we were going to enlarge our volunteer forces substanially, hopefully without a draft, and had we negotiated with the Taliban to accept their offer of Bin Laden, and his commanders, had we forced them to allow us to occupy certain frontier bases and make the Taliban stand down as we cleared out the foriegn elements of the Al Quada from Afghanistan.
This is the offer they made immediately after the attack, and while the Taliban was in power their was no heroin being exported compared to the enormous quantities poluting our street today.
Had we maintained the No-Fly Zone in the South and North of Iraq while making an agreement with the Turks to occupy the northern Kurdish region with elements of the Special Forces to insure the stability of the North. This with the continued cooperation of Nato in the region, trade sanctions, and patience with the UN until we swayed the other elements of what was the Desert Storm Coalition that would have successfully invaded and occupied Iraq, would not have been wiser?
Had we been smart and patient, instead of arrogantly launching a Madison Avenue Campaign to invade Iraq without provocation, and with no plan for it's aftermath, as well as no Desert Storm Coalition to help with the effort, and expense, that we would not be in good stead in the world, stil respected, stil strong, stil standing on the moral high ground. We would have stil been the nation the world turned to for leadership, instead of the nation they turn away from in shame.
I wonder why people like you and Tommy stil hold onto what is a complete failure of leadership, and handmaiden the behavior of the worst scoundrels, cowards, and fools in our long honored history.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Halperin hit it right on the head? Sure, it'll be a reality check when the incoming Democratic President sees first hand how badly Bush and Cheney screwed up and what a mess they've left this country. And then, as they usually do, the Republicans will blame the Democrats for the mess.
"But if I'm the GOP, all day long, I'm going after that terror warrior concept."
Bill, just grow a Fu Manch mustache, start wearing motorcycle leathers, and get it over with, you macho, macho man. Terror warrior? Hah...! How about the falafel warrior?
Fu Manch= Fu Manchu. Sorry...
"So, just talking about your personal security, would you support President John Edwards? Remember, no coerced interrogation, civilian lawyers in courts for captured overseas terrorists, no branding the Iranian guards terrorists, and no phone surveillance without a specific warrant."
"I am simply amazed at how soft some Americans have become when it comes to confronting the jihadist killers."
How about the fact that the Bush administration has NOT confronted "jihadist killers?" Osama, et. al. are still on the loose.
How about that really pesky Constitution, what with its prohibitions on unreasonable search and seizure, insistence on probable cause, and guarantee of fair treatment in the Justice system?
no coerced interrogation
He means "torture."civilian lawyers in courts for captured overseas terrorists
That darned ancient concept of habeas corpus.
no branding the Iranian guards terrorists
And they're terrorists because...?
and no phone surveillance without a specific warrant.
See also: The Bill of Rights.
I am simply amazed at how soft some Americans have become when it comes to confronting the jihadist killers.
I'm amazed at how soft conservatives have become when it comes to protecting our rights from terrorists.
"And they're terrorists because...?"
An excellent point. What are they (allegedly) doing in Iraq that we didn't do against the Soviets in Afghanistan? You could argue the relative morality of the two wars, but the tactics are the same.
You so conveniently forget that the Constitution is just a GD Piece of Paper as GW is alleged to have put it...All one has to do is watch the republican debate that just happened to realize that these neo-con clowns have zero respect for the Constitution and it's relevance to our current situation. Without the Constitution and the freedoms defined therein we, and our country, are nothing! With all of their fear-mongering, it becomes apparent that they conveniently forget that the United States were under direct military assault in the past (See the War of 1812 and the burning of the White House) and we didn't abrogate the Constitution! What a bunch of cowards in power!!!!
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That is the oath that President Numbnuts took, yet, he repeatedly insists that his primary duty is to protect us from turrists...all the while ignoring the Constitution that he actually swore to defend.
Whipping up war fever against Iran, eh, Billo? Not happy with the two million dead Iraqis? Need more dead moslems to make you happy? Psychopath.
MMFA might have a good point on this topic. I doubt that those Dems will ever have a "come-to-Jesus" moment. Ever.
No, Billiybob, you are confusing the phrase "Come to Jesus moment" with a "Praise the Lord" moment. In the latter, one enters an hullucinogenic state, abandonong all rationale and sense of reality...and then votes Republican. Praise the Lord! Bomb Iran! I'm not gay...either! ;>)
We've had plenty---GOP inspired.
I would hope no Democrat would sit down with these two traitors and not discount most of what they say as probable lies/distractions.
Every time I see your comments that are a blatant attempt to own Christianity I am going to point out to you that there are those of us who are liberal, democrat Christians. If your statement was a joke it was a poor one, and if it was a suggestion that no Democrat can meet your high standards of faith it was dishonest and inaccurate.
They dont need one. Compared to George W Gump, clearly the stupidest most incompetent president in American history, they really COULDNT do any worse. Try to remember us lefties were the ones that were RIGHT ALL ALONG.
It is a small comfort, but one none the less, that whomever we have for president next time, it will surely be an improvement. It's hard to imagine anyone doing a worse job.
You apparently were not alive during the Carter administration.
How many wars did Carter start?
You neither ?
Apparantly you were braindead during the Carter administration and still are.
Of course I was. Bush makes him look like Thomas Jefferson
Iran is little more than a shiny object distracting us from the clusterf*** that is the lifesucking occupation of Iraq.
F*** Billo and all the other blood thirsty bastards forwarding spurious allegations in support of more militant foreign policy.
The "shiny object" reference reminds me of a scene from "Shaka Zulu", where Shaka described a monkey trap. To catch a monkey, you put a shiny object in a gourd; the monkey reaches in and grabs the object, but his fist is too big to pull out through the neck of the gourd. He is trapped... doomed by his refusal to let go of his prize. Could that be a metaphor for President Smirking Chimp's present situation in Iraq?
Oh, those Dems. If they only KNEW...
... the DOUBLE LIFE led by Bush and Cheney.
Bush finishes a press conference, then takes the elevator down to the twelfth sub-level, where he changes into his jet-black body suit and dons the various web-belts that hold his weapons and equipment. Cheney has just emerged from his "undisclosed location" which is, of course, the nerve center for fighting terrorism. Cheney already has on his battle gear, and has already donned his favorite navy blue watch cap, to cover his bald pate against glare in their critical night missions.
"Who do we hit tonight?" Bush asks causally, checking the loads in his various weapons. Cheney is quick with the answer, "Chopper to Newark port, ambush terrorists picking up a container full of C4, then we head to a nuclear plant in Pennsylvania ... there's a terrorist cell nearby and they're planning to blow the plant. We'll hit them first, take 'em out."
"What else?" asks Bush, clearly aware that this is a light schedule so far.
"Threre's been a lot of traffic using the word 'IRAN' and 'INVADE' coming from a certain location. We've gotta do a snatch and grab for documents and harddrives, a no-trace hit. Address is the Washington Post. Gotta kill those stories." Cheney says with his signature lopsided grin.
"Can you imagine how surprised a Democrat President will be, if they win, when the find out what we REALLY do, Dick?" Bush says with a tone of irony.
"Candy asses will crap their drawers," Dick spits out. "Without us protecting the nation, it'll all be over for America. Dammit, why don't those damn American people SUPPORT us? Can't we tell them what we're doing?" Cheney asks, racking the bolt on his auto. "Almost forgot, we're doing a strafing run along he Mexican border, only about 1500 miles of it this time." Cheney mocks firing a 50 caliber machine gun, saying "tat, tat, tat, tat" and then laughing.
Bush gets a dreamy look in his eye, as they ride another elevator up to operations. "Nope. Can't do it. Our work isn't for glory, and most Americans just can't handle the truth. We gave it our best shot, buddy. We've kept those terrorist wolves at bay on our watch, and there's nothing more we can do."
"Yeah, well I can't wait to brief that new Dem Presiwimp, whoever it is. Can't wait to tell them what's on their schedule, day in, day out." Cheney spits violently on the floor, "Someday they may tell our story, JR, and that will sure open a lot of eyes and change a lot of minds about this Administration!"
"Lock and load, Dick. We've got a nation to protect! Let's ROLL!" Bush shouts, as they load into the black helicopter for the 2,368th day in a row, headed anywhere in the world that terrorism threatens...
First, a riot.
Second, if this turns out to be true I have to vote GOP the rest of my life to atone for what I have said about Bush, Cheney, and other assorted administration members.
Beautiful, Tex. I'm just glad you didn't tack on one of those "it was only a dream" endings, where Bush wakes up on the lawn, after a hard afternoon of bike riding, brush clearing and beer, and Cheney wakes up on the couch after trying to make it through the 8pm episode of 24.
I have never seen a more patronizing O'Reilly ever. His demeanor and questions to Liz (clearly twisting her words) are pretty much calling her an idiot to her face.
Next time she should drop the smile and ask him if he thinks she is an idiot for treating her like a five year old and for pretending not to understand the difference between "making it worst" and saying "it is our fault".
Wake up Liz!
O'Reilly is using a classic Jingofascist strawman. If you dare to even consider cause and effect in our geopolitical endeavors, they scream "You're blaming America!"
It's just one more by-product of Conservative black and white thinking.
"OK, so we got Edwards and Obama, Liz, not wanting to brand this terrible organization terrorists;
So what's the present definition of a terrorist organization, any one that we think is terrible, or that (allegedly) provides support for attacks on our troops? What happened to targeting civilians? Clearly, BilldO thinks that anyone who opposes us is a terrorist. It's absurd.
"You and Liz both went right at the reality, though. In this election, Iraq is going to trump that. If there's not another terrorist attack, the Democrats are going to be able to say, "You didn't know how to handle Iraq, therefore you don't know how to handle the war on terror."
Did Halperin mean to say, "...If there is another terrorist attack,..." I would think the lack of another terrorist attack is the only thing the GOP has working for it. If there is an attack before the election I think the Democrats would beat them to death with it. Or did Halperin let the GOP's dearest wish slip. Is the GOP election gift a terrorist attack that would allow them to herd the sheep back into the "safety" of the barn -- where they are planning to make lamb chops.
I wounder which it is?
That's food for thought. If we do have another terrorist attack before the election, what would be the fallout? Would Cheney-Bush declare martial law, and stay in office until the "crisis" is over? I think their first order of business would be to have a bunker meeting with Rush Limbaugh and figure out a way to blame it on the Democrats.
It's a chilling thought, in any case.
I don't get the reason for labeling this group as terrorists. It's merely an extension of Iran's army.
President Karzai of Afghanistan has argued that Iran is "a helper and a solution" for Afghanistan while Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq has argued that Iran has a "positive and constructive" role in helping the Iraqi government improve security in his wartorn nation.
What Israel wants, Israel gets. And Israel wants US bombs dropping on Tehran. That's why.
No doubt.
And a war against / invasion of Iran will give the GOP backers a healthy boost in profits for their companies too.
I don't get the reason for labeling this group as terrorists. It's merely an extension of Iran's army.
By calling it a terrorist organization they can can conduct militarty operations against them without a declaration of war and they can claim exceptions to interrtnational law and treaties.
HALPERIN: But let me say one more thing. If he did get in or if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I think they're going to have a come-to-Jesus moment where they sit down with Dick Cheney and George Bush - -
####################
That would be more like a go to hell moment.
Bush had his "Come to Jesus Moment" when he sat down with school kids on 9/11. When told of the 9/11 attacks he just sat in his chair, Totally Stuplified. He just sat there wondering what in the world to do. Romney would of called his lawyers, we know that now.
Hey Halperin, you insufferable a**wipe, here's a thought. Bush didn't have a come-to-Jesus moment when approached by the Clinton team about a little problem they were having with a guy named Osama Bin Laden. Ever hear of him? Then when 2 guys in the Bush administration, Clark and Tenet, who had worked under Clinton came to Bush with their hair on fire about "chatter" Bush ignored them and reassigned Clark to internet security. John Ashcroft famously groused about never wanting to hear another word about Al-Qaeda.
So I don't think Bush is in the position you imagine him to be, schooling incoming Presidents on the state of play in the actual, real War on Terror. You total frakking idiot.
Oh Halperin , please give it a rest.
Stephen Colbert is starting to look like the most reasonable right-winger in he media.
O'REILLY:"... no coerced interrogation, civilian lawyers in courts for captured overseas terrorists, no branding the Iranian guards terrorists, and no phone surveillance without a specific warrant.
"Talking Points" believes most Americans reject that foolishness."
Here are some other things that "Talking POints" believes;
BilldO is some sort of warrior
George Bush is a credible, competent president
Black people are surprising when they can behave in a restaurant, and not say motherf*cker while ordering
Body language analysis is more reliable than critical thinking and analyzing facts
A loofah is a falafel
"secular" and "progressive" are terms that apply to those ideologically somewhere in between the GOP and the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks
Why do you hate America, HBL?
That's assuming that there is an incoming President in 2009. The Bush Junta stole the 2000 election, and likely 2004. They threw out habeas corpus without either constitutional condition existing (invasion/insurrection), invented the concept of of Islamofascism out of whole cloth, redefined torture so that it's not torture when we do it, illegally invaded Iraq, attacked Afghanistan without any proof that bin Laden was even in country, and continue to beat the drums for war with Iran -- there really isn't any reason to doubt that they could, if they wanted, suspend the 2008 election via a "national emergency".
I think that's a very real possibility. If you read about Dick Cheney's history, you'll see that consolidation and expansion of Executive power has been one of his pet projects for years. Jimmy Carter was right about him.
This quote is absolutely fantastic. If you want to point to someone who has hit it right on the head, look no further than this bit of absolute truth:
You cannot say you're the greatest country on Earth and proceed to implement some of the worst, anti-democratic, anti-human rights actions known in first world countries at this time in our history. It may be true that we're not going to win hearts and minds by becoming hippies, but it is proven that we're doing nothing but hurting ourselves when we mimic the harmful actions that we criticize our opposing governments for doing.
Bingo! Unfortunately, that sentiment doesn't fit within the realm of conservative black and white thinking. It's similar to the Flag Burning debate...try to explain to one of the 30 percenters that the U.S. Flag symbolizes the freedom to burn it, and their eyes will glaze over. It's just too complex for them.
The "come to Jesus" moment I most want to see is Dickhead Cheney frog-marched out of the White House for his war crimes.