Glenn Greenwald Don't Play

Oh, no...he don't.  He will call out anyone on anything at any time about what he believes is right.  He was a constitutional law and civil rights litigator.  Litigator.  He is accustomed to getting facts and he will argue you or a point into the ground and won't let go.  Even I was annoyed* with him over his haranguing then Sen. Obama's position on the FISA vote.  Yeah, I disagreed with Obama on his position, but frankly, got tired of Greenwald being such a harridan about the point.

Greenwald took a position against appointing John Brennan as anything having to do with the Intelligence Community in the Obama Administration because he saw Brennan as condoning torture...and he wouldn't let it go, getting into several back and forths with other bloggers including Spencer Ackerman.  Spencer, bless his heart, argued his point more than ably but admitted that arguing with Greenwald is not for the faint of heart.

Greenwald does not play.  After years of working with litigators, some good, some bad, some lazy and some downright stupid, I think I can spot one who is not just in it for aggrandizement.  Greenwald, I believe, is in it for the love of the Constitution and the rule of law and will slap anyone who sullies them in the face.  And oh...to have been able to type or edit his legal briefs.  He is the kind of lawyer who old lit sec battleaxes like me at the very least, respect.

And he hates hypocrisy.  This update paragraph in his column today about what a DC whore Tom Daschle apparently is, is priceless.

When they met, Tom was 33 and married with three children, and Linda was 23 and single (and 3 years away from having been crowned Miss Kansas). He and his first wife then divorced and shortly thereafter married Linda. It's amazing how many politicians love to self-righteously tout what a "sacred and traditional cultural bond" is the male-female marital union even as they parade around with their much-younger latest wife, whom they met while still enmeshed in a "sacred and traditional bond" with their first wife.

Preach it, Glenny.  This thought is an aside.  You should really read the whole column.  Greenwald thinks and writes in argumentative legal briefs.  I don't always agree with him, but damn I love the way he sets it out.

* I am sorry to say that Too Sense is no longer in existence so the link within my post won't work.

What's To Be Done

Riffing off of David Ignatius' column in WaPo about negotiations with the Taliban, Spencer Ackerman brainstorms about what's to be done.  Addressing what the Taliban wants coming to the table, Spencer posits:

There are concerns about all of these, and, above all, a meta-concern about the Taliban's seriousness in negotiating. Since coming back from Afghanistan, I've been experimenting with a prospective policy: bolster U.S. forces and concentrate entirely on the east, where the U.S. command has the greatest and most direct influence, and where the first-order threat -- Taliban and al-Qaeda elements -- either are, or border, or infiltrate into. This involves essentially ignoring the rest of Afghanistan, which is the biggest flaw in my argument. But anyway -- COIN the hell out of the east, as much as specific conditions allow: my interviews with Afghans in Paktia and Khost suggest to me that there's a base of support for U.S. troops provided that they're seen as actively improving the security of the populace, and delivering results. Take that opportunity for the next one to three years. In Year One, intensify calls to Taliban and affiliated elements for reconciliation with the national government (Karzai or otherwise). That way, the choice posed to the insurgency is fairly clear -- you can fight and die, or you can have a piece of the action. And you publicly announce that the prize for a thoroughgoing reconciliation with the Afghan government -- judged by whatever mechanism can be created -- is a U.S. withdrawal. The flip side to that is if the Taliban doesn't come to the table, we stay and fight.

This is above my pay grade, but I think it's a good thing that there is more thought put into strategy in Afghanistan than Hulk Crush.  It didn't work in Iraq.

Good Opportunity

My friend Spencer Ackerman is going to Afganistan for two weeks to do his national security reporting thing.  I cannot stress enough what a better man than I he is.  Not that I know anything about the region and what reportage from a dangerous part of the world entails, but I gave him the best advice a former DOOM addict could give.  (Really...whole weekends lost playing from 7:00 a.m. to midnight.)  "Head down, wits about you, back to the wall, eyes on the corners and internal GPS full on."  Yeah.  Not the same thing but at least keeping said advice in the back of your mind cannot be all lame.

He's asked some of his friends, of which I am honored to be one, to take up the slack at Attackerman while he's gone.  So, I'll be cross-posting from September 3 to September 18 there.  Of course, read mine, but this is also a good opportunity for you to read some of the other writers that Spence has called on.

Better Than I, But I'm Trying

Punk rock goes completely over my head, but Spencer gives a gorgeous essay deeper than a mere explanation.

Remember my talk of envy?  Consider me envious but hopeful.  If I could just get out of my own way, I could write like that.

Computer Issues? FIXED!

My computer issues have been resolved.  Yay!  My router is now putty in my hands.  So I'll get back to posting more frequently, if only to push my Bitter Screed further down the page.  (I won't link to it...it's, like, right there.  Ugh.)  I suppose I could delete it, but that's not quite right.  I wrote it; I should own up to it.

Changing the subject...  I interviewed my complete blog admiration crush Spencer Ackerman last weekend and am working on a profile of my young brave evil-ass journalist friend.  I hope to get it up this weekend.  I'm looking to interview some other of my internet writer pals for pieces for Anonymous Sec's, so you can get to see them how I do.

Also, Ta-Nehisi Coates moved over to The Atlantic.  Big move for him, but I'll miss his masthead with the quote that confused me.

Thanks to the folks that leave comments (shout out to Anonymous and Phoebe).  You all completely make my day.

Stay tuned, y'all.  I feel a writing flurry coming on.

What He Said

I had been doing a crapload of research for writing a "playas and the game" post about the long term occupation agreement set forth by President Bush to the Iraqi government.

When I first paid attention to it, it was, as usual, through Spencer's blog Attackerman.  I wasn't too worried about its foolish implementation because I figured it had to go through Congress for approval.  But I was still caught off guard because for such a sweeping agreement, there didn't seem to be the type of coverage such a logistical and political agreement would warrant.  So I e-mailed Spencer about it.

What he told me was shocking.  The agreement was being set forth without the necessity of Congressional approval because it was not a "treaty," it was an "agreement."  Considering the history of the administration skirting around the law, I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was.

I was terrified the agreement would go through and our country and our troops would be committed to occupying Iraq for God knows how long.  Further, the next president, hopefully, Sen. Obama, would have the crappy choice of sticking to the hubristic deal or somehow breaking the deal with all the political fallout that could come from weaseling out of an agreement.

Oh, well.  Spencer beat me to it.  No surprise there.  As he was explaining to me when I felt I was asking stupid questions of him about the agreement that I just didn't understand, it's kind of his job.  Well done, I might add.  Damn.  He rips through this stuff off like butter.  I'm a little uncomfortable with Spencer's last sentence, but he's young and a firebrand and he's seen things up close, and I'm sure he's speaking from what he admits to being his wildly volatile temper and doesn't really mean it.  Or maybe he does.  I just don't want Spence mad at me.

If you don't read anything else, please read the link below.  It's important that you know.  If you don't agree with Spencer's viewpoint, at least it should make you investigate the origins and existence of the agreement.  There are many viewpoints in favor of the agreement.  I won't link because it's too early to get infuriated.  Google, like, National Review Online or something.  I think it important you know what the people tasked with ensuring the security of this country are capable of.  Agree.  Disagree.  But know.

Okay.  I'll stop shaking my finger at you now.

"Fight War, Not Wars"

Luckily, the agreement didn't go through and that's its status.  As of now.  I don't quite sigh with relief because this administration has a Macchiavellian way of getting what they want, no matter the cost.

UPDATE 7/21/08: One Drop on Too Sense wrote a great comprehensive rundown of the FISA issue. Actually, I had come to somewhat agreeing with him since I wrote this...I was still a bit stung by the "caving." But One Drop completely convinced me.

Gail Collins wrote in The New York Times what I've been thinking about Sen. Obama but couldn't quite express; I wish I had written it -- but with a little less twee.

...But if you look at the political fights he’s picked throughout his political career, the main theme is not any ideology. It’s that he hates stupidity. “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war,” he said in 2002 in his big speech against the invasion of Iraq. He did not, you will notice, say he was against unilateral military action or pre-emptive attacks or nation-building. He was antidumb.

Most of the things Obama’s taken heat for saying this summer fall into these two familiar patterns — attempts to find a rational common ground on controversial issues and dumb-avoidance.

On the common-ground front, he’s called for giving more federal money to religious groups that run social programs, but only if the services they offer are secular. People can have guns for hunting and protection, but we should crack down on unscrupulous gun sellers. Putting some restrictions on the government’s ability to wiretap is better than nothing, even though he would rather have gone further.

I would take exception to Sen. Obama's caving on the FISA issue. I believe that should have been something he took a stand on for a few reasons.

1. Wiretapping without warrant is constitutionally wrong. You can try to explain it to me six ways from Sunday and I still will disagree.

2. My boss had to sign a document yesterday and I noticed in the attestation, language to the effect of "I declare that I will uphold the Constitution..." I believe throughout the United States, all attorneys, when passing their state's Bar, have to attest to the very same thing. Sen. Obama, along with the right-wing activists (yeah, I said it) on the Supreme Court, had to attest to the same thing. Again, wiretapping without warrant is contrary to the Fourth Amendment and each and every attorney in Congress who signed off on the FISA bill as it stands, has broken their vow; interpretation be damned.

3. Telecommunication companies who followed Bush's requirement that they break the law have highly paid, very smart lawyers. Those lawyers broke their vow.

I gave another $25 to Sen. Obama's campaign on Monday, I think. I had all kinds of incentive because he is offering 10 lucky winners the opportunity to go to the convention in Denver. I wanna go. In the Tell Us Your Story opportunity they give everyone a chance to get their two cents in with their money (smart beyond belief by the way), I wrote the following:

Sen. Obama, though I am dismayed by your stance on FISA, I am still an avid supporter. I am a supporter not because you're the lesser of two evils, but because I trust that you will captain the ship with wisdom, energy, wit, humility and intelligence. Your presidency is what I believe my country needs. I believe you are up to the task and you have my support; in $25 increments.

I do hope, though, you can see your way clear to change your stance on FISA. I'd point you to Glenn Greenwald losing his mind over the issue, but I'm sure your campaign is more than aware.

In my opinion, guarding the Constitution is the right thing to do, even if it loses you the election. I couldn't be any prouder of you, but that would ring my patriotic soul greatly if done by my preferred candidate and a fellow citizen of my country.

Thank you for your attention.

Think I'm gonna win?

I'm not as screechy as Glenn Greenwald, but that's my story. I'm sticking to it. But I never expected to be happy with every choice Sen. Obama makes. Because he's my preferred candidate, I trust that his judgment is sound in the big picture.

Ronald Pagan, prolific and malleable commenter over at Jezebel made a good point about supporting Sen. Obama, as I believe Spencer (I can't seem to link to him right now) and Greenwald (Salon-Greenwald-any post at all) did as well. When your candidate is wrong, you have to be able to call him on it. Blind support is dumb. Sen. Obama hates dumb.

Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere

Brian Beutler, a young, very smart political analysis blogger for The Consortium Report, and friend of my young, very smart national security blogger friend Spencer Ackerman (Attackerman), was shot early Wednesday morning in DC.  He's alive and expected to make a full recovery.

It seems, though, that he could use a rent party of sorts; a little AFLAC from friends.

I know not many people are out there reading me, but those of my friends and family that are, take a look at Brian's work linked above at his name.  If you can see your way to kick in a buck or two, please do.  At the top of Spencer's blog is a link to donate via PayPal.

At the very least, please read this young man's writing and the writing of his colleagues and contemporaries, many of them referenced to the right in my links.  These are bright, talented young people who are possessed of a spirit to make things better.  I don't agree with everything they write, but good lord, does it make me think.  And write.