Who started it?

Bill Bennett asks why would the Democrats attack Bush on his strength,[update 10-31-11 *] his war on terrorism?

Release of the NIE was bad for everybody, he claims. That is the point. Intelligence is on the Democrats side, and they want it locked up.

Matt Lauer did a surprisingly good job countering most points that Bennett made including pointing out that Bush has been on the offensive, and Bennett served his cake and ate it too, by excusing that as becuase it is Bush's strength.

Well, if it is their strength, just who is Bennett waving the white flag to (maybe a semafore, when he persists that "he brought it up" meaning Clinton started it? Is he talking to those he claims didn't blaim Clinton, didn't blame Bush or did blame the CIA? And who is he sending the message to, when he brings the war on terrorism back to Iraq, but he hopes that "chasing after Clinton on the world stage... is over"?

We must keep the truth out there, on the media stage. They will continue to misread it. Who will keep it up?

Who will be fearless? [Segue in closing] Special thanks to Stephanie Miller for waking me up (and my snooze alarm) and for having Arianna Huffington on, not that the latter is what got me started, but we are finally on the same page and in a growing choir.

In contrast or no thanks to Tucker Carlson or Matt Drudge.

[* also labels and link added]

Pre-empting Crimes

Remember: Humor is a tool and so is the dictionary.
While Bill Clinton hinged his excuses on "what the definition of 'is' is". The current administration has pre-empted excuses by hinging humor and the dictionary on "what the definition of everything is".

Abuse of power is the issue. While Clinton was investigated and found to have hinged his evasion of his abuse of an intern, Nixon was investigated and found to have covered up his abuses on the national level, and Bush pre-empted abuses on the international level. But now what Bush has done to get us "over there" will congress investigate too much "over here"?

If the above is too hard to follow, then try this:
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act: S. 1959 Here is the TEXT

While the above is the senate bill by the same name here is the House version which passed: H.R. 1955

While I did read the latter, the former will be discussed on The Thom Hartmann Show. [See Update]
AM1090 Seattle 9 AM to noon

`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`In this subtitle:

`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

I hate to alert any potential terrorists but do not these definitions pertain to The Project for the New American Century ? It may be a section that united the vote for this bill, while an understanding of it, would certainly mean to change it.

[Earlier Posted Comment here:
Earlier radicals there:
Jefferson-

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.Goldwater-

[Same Day Update: After posting the above I found this on Slate Bad Ideas]

[Update The Thom Hartmann Show: 11/29/07 ]
[11-29-07: TruthOut]

Interesting Dig

With the talk that the President is on a "charm offensive" with his recent dinner invite, a look back at George W. Bush found these unrelated googles. 

FORMAT NOTE:  You read so I don't have to?*
I don't recall George W. Bush being especially charming in his first term with a Republican House and a split-Senate let alone hospitable to Clinton administration concerns about terrorism.  Isn't it interesting though that the Bush family had relations though with both the Hinkley and Bin Laden families.  I'm not saying there was a conspiracy, only that it is an interesting dig.  i.e. one find of the google (thanks to Al Gore Rythms)[!]

*There just so happens to be Six Links embedded above, but the interesting dig refers to the unrelated googles. (or R they?)
.

Smirking Gun[!]

OK, I won't overuse the term smoking gun, but when I heard Senator McCain's leak theory, I knew something was up.  "The only conceivable" reason that McCain knows the "motive for such damaging and compromising leaks" is that it is something he could conceive of doing.  The Issa cover-up committee is along the same track.  Worse than Watergate, less than WMD***.

September 11th occurred because the Bush administration had contempt for the Clinton administration and refused to carry on in the case against terrorism.  Fast and Furious is still under investigation, but it seems that the political case is of the opposite extreme.  The Obama administration not changing more from the previous administration.

I have a feeling that the Issa Committee investigation is actually an attempt to interfere with the Obama administration* of justice and foreign policy.  Or retribution for Watergate, Iran Contra and Plame combined, or Republican power** as usual.
 
* Ctrl F "obstructionism"
** now that is the ticket or subpoena(Thom Hartmann)

*** 6-22-12 Pre-Post-or-us?
(I was reticent to use 9/11, especially with the smoking[!] gun lede-in. While Representative Mica is really stretching things, two things are certain. September 11th or even a dead ATF agent are nothing to smirk about, and Representative Issa hides his smirk with a snear.)  
[Related posts:  Re:investigation, Re:dribble, Re-course, Re:turn(Ctrl F "sabotage" "pate")]
[GPS for MSNBC labels?]

[!] really sic, i.e. no typo, nor disrespect for the departed intended
[A caller to the Ed Schultz show noted a similar theme.  Republicans are more about obstruction politics than finding the facts.  They must have something to hide.  Obama's success and their incompetence.  But then there followed**2 on Thom Hartmann the PE/FDR/BS [!]]

[It is on !]
[A friend asked my opinion on the wikileaks deal. Well more specifically the personalities involved.  Bottomline, I don't feel that military personel should take it on themselve to leak top secret information without considering the consequences, nor should they have been distributed without the same considerations.  Unfortunately there may not be enough law on the books to prosecute the latter although there certainly is for the former.  Who do we have to blame for the laws on the books?  Congress.  Who do we have for not enough laws on the books?  Republicans.  Well, it is not the quantity but the quality.  But the answer is the same.  Talk is cheap, but actions*2 cost.]

*2 accidental link
[Weird link of the day.]
**2 with all due respect for B.S. it was the PE crack by FDR (Privileged Enterprise)
[Not so weird link of day.]