« April 26, 2009 - May 2, 2009 | Home | May 10, 2009 - May 16, 2009 »

Week of May 3, 2009 - May 9, 2009

New class of statesmen emerging


In theory, all politicians are supposed to uphold the rule of law and the constitution. But those few who dare to actually practice what they preach have been traditionally thought of as outsiders, cast aside as fringe; derisively labelled "strict constitutionalists" or "crazy libertarians"; irrelevant to the realities of the modern world.

There are a handful of politicians that have vastly divergent views on a host of issues, but the thread that brings them together is their vow to uphold the rule of law. Ordinarily, you wouldn't put Senator Russ Feingold, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Congressman Ron Paul and consumer advocates like Ralph Nader, all in the same category.

So maybe there needs to be a new category. Maybe those who plan to run for office, those who run on a platform of putting the rule of law first have a more viable chance of winning elections at a time when corruption in government, in all three branches of government, runs so deep and with such impunity.

We always hear that chorus about how Washington will never change. New members of congress promising to change things are dismissed as hopelessly naive. "They don't know how Washington operates, once they get here, they'll change" say political veterans.  

But maybe a new class of statesmen is quietly emerging--trumping traditional party line candidates in popularity.

Maybe if your rep or Senator has given up trying to change Washington, it's time to change that rep or Senator.

No torture needed to thwart 9/11 attacks.


It didn't require torture to foil the worst terrorist attack on American soil.  

It didn't require water boarding, extraordinary rendition, or the rounding up of thousands of innocent people--stripping them of their rights and abusing them in detention camps for years on end.

None of that was necessary.  Because the intelligence that could have helped thwart 9/11 was right there in that August 2001 presidential daily briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S".  It even mentioned the idea that Al Qaeda would hijack planes and fly them into buildings in major U.S. cities.  

That was actionable intelligence that could have, at the very least, heightened the attention and readiness of our Defense Department.   (It makes me wonder why the Bush administration and the Pentagon seemed so absolutely dumbstruck the day of the attacks.)

So if it didn't require torture to garner that kind of information, and it does seem like that was the motherload of actionable intelligence, what did it require?

A President and Vice President that took the threat seriously enough to disrupt their month-long summer vacations.  

Add up all the intelligence that has been garnered through torture since 9/11 and it doesn't even come close to the intelligence, the warnings, the ultimate "heads up" that was handed to Bush and Cheney on a silver platter that fateful summer.  


« April 26, 2009 - May 2, 2009 | Home | May 10, 2009 - May 16, 2009 »

tpmgary

user-pic

Following: 102
Followers: 55

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Location ny
  • Party independent democrat
  • Politics progressive

Favorites

Bio

degradable

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address