Posted by Tina
Government agencies are responsible to police themselves — to ensure that improper influences and conflicts of interest do not skew policy away from the public interest. Inspectors general are one way the agencies do that internally. And it is entirely appropriate for Congress to ask that inspectors general perform this role in a manner that informs Congress without unduly interfering in the agency’s performance of its mission. – Andrew McCarthy
There is a political fist fight at play in Washington. Five members of the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Bachmann and Congressmen Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland and Rooney, have dared to question whether Hillary Clinton’s assistant and advisor, Huma Abedin, was adequately or properly investigated for security clearance.
The questions these representatives are asking are important to national security…but both the left and the right are up in arms and out to shame or silence them. Both parties are unwilling to bring these matters to the attention of the public. Indeed, national security and the war have been shoved out of the news even as the war goes on and our troops remain in harms way in the fight.
One administration official has even reportedly declared the war “over”.
Is it just the election or is something much more sinister going on?
The President doesn’t discuss the war or make remarks related to the war in his campaign speeches. We are being kept in the dark about the progress of the war, the goings on in the Middle East, and the goals of the administration. All the while our young people are bleeding and dying. There is something off…something is not quite right in all this. If there is a question about this administration regarding national security shouldn’t the American people be advised and informed? What is the significance of ties in this administration to sworn enemies of the United States? Why is this issue, and information regarding terrorism, being shoved into the background?
Some of you will be interested in the concerns that Michelle Bachman and the other committee members have about Ms. Abedin’s ties to undesirable organizations and persons, one of whom is said to have worked with Bin Laden in forming Al Qaeda. These undesirable characters and organizations have been involved in or have given support to those who wage acts of terror against the United States. The information Mr.McCarthy brings to light certainly raised my eyebrows!
Andrew McCarthy spoke about the seriousness of this matter before the Center for Security Policy at the National Press Club in Washington DC recently and opened with a very provocative suggestion:
Imagine, if you will, the following scenario.
A candidate for a high position in an executive branch agency — a position that entails a great deal of influence over public policy, a position that requires access to highly classified national security information — comes in for an interview by the FBI.
This is a routine background investigation. Even people being considered for low-level positions in the executive branch are subjected to them. It is not because we question their patriotism or suspect that they are bad people. It is just common sense — in addition to being the subject of a good deal of statutory law and federal regulation.
Naturally, as government positions get higher, more important, and more sensitive, the background investigations get more detailed — probing not only a candidate’s background, experiences, finances and associations, but those of the candidate’s close family members.
One matter that is of particular importance is connections to foreign countries, organizations, persons and movements. There’s an entire section devoted to these concerns in Form 86, the form that all candidates for national security positions in the federal government are required to complete.
Let’s assume that our candidate truthfully completes the form. What do you suppose our FBI agent is thinking as he flips through the form, asks some follow up questions, and gets the following story from the candidate:
“I’ve worked the last dozen years at an institute that was founded by a wealthy, influential Saudi who is intimately involved in the financing of terrorism.”
“Are you just speculating about that?” the candidate is asked.
“Speculating? Oh, no, no, I’m not speculating. You see, this Saudi guy actually started an ostensible ‘charity’ that the United States government has designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It is a designated terrorist because it lavishly funded al Qaeda — you know, the jihadist network that we’re at war with. As a matter of fact, one of the men this Saudi guy brought in to help him run the specially designated terrorist organization, was so close to Osama bin Laden, that he actually helped bin Laden start al Qaeda.”
The agent figures, “You’ve got to be kidding me. I guess you didn’t know this Saudi guy who was funding al Qaeda, right?”
“Well,” our candidate responds, “as a matter of fact, we overlapped for seven years at that institute I worked at. Remember I told you that he’s the one who started it and I eventually worked there for twelve years? Well, turns out he stayed involved in it for decades — it was his baby … he gave the institution its mission and its vision. He was still there advising it and shaping for my first seven years there. Then they took him off the masthead … right around the time he became a defendant in the civil lawsuit filed by the victims of the 9/11 attacks.”
The agent is stunned. All he can think to ask is: “Why did you leave the institute?”
“Oh,” our candidate replies, “I got offered a full-time job at the State Department, helping the Secretary of State make U.S. foreign policy.”
I really wish that was a farfetched story.
Read Andrew McCarthy’s speech that exposes the questionable, troubling ties in this administration, and specifically with Ms. Abedin, to the Muslim Brotherhood by clicking here. Or, watch it on C-SPAN.
It is not a good idea to return this administration to the White House given the huge responsibility involved in defending and protecting our freedoms and natural rights. National security matters and November can’t get here soon enough!
“Some of you will be interested in the concerns that Michelle Bachman and the other committee members have about Ms. Abedin’s ties to ….”
Yeah, didn’t Ms Bachman and her cohorts write some letter to State, and didn’t her fellow representatives express some dismay and embarrassment at the lack of substance therein, and didn’t she back right off … and wasn’t this some months ago?
I mean … I think the best bit was the deceased uncle, whom Abedin had never met, and his purported association twenty years ago with the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo.
One or two incidents of the past year or two may have escaped you (everything escapes Bachman), but we are routing for the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo these days.
And THEN I found out that Abedin is married to the infamous Mr. Weiner … of the texted crotch … or twittered … or whatever. And, well, I don’t know, the whole situation seems to be, just … so … not threatening.
Like I wrote…”some of you will be interested…”
Libby is just fine with the possibility that our enemies could be involved in directing our foreign policy and that those involved could have broken laws in the process.
Libby also finds it necessary to deride Michelle Bachman for doing her job as a member of the oversight committee.
This is serious…and its time to put serious people that care about our nation back in charge.
Evidently Libby is rooting (“routing” sic) for the Muslim Brotherhood. Great minds think alike.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6386
In Libby’s Bizarro World parallel universe (see DC comics, Superman) Bachmann backed right off. Not so. Again Libby resorts to pure invention (and makes an ass out of herself). *Yawn*
Whatever one may think of Michelle Bachmann and whether she is right or wrong about the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into the power structure of national security, she certainly has not backed off.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/19/michele-bachmann-sticks-to-accusations-about-muslim-brotherhood
On a separate note, check out this strike back Romney ad, “America Deserves Better”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-EEETo3Sqo
I agree, America does deserve better. Much better.
Well, I’ve got support from the “Idaho Statesman”:
Seven-term GOP Rep. Mike Simpson said Friday that Rep. Michele Bachmann’s claim that an extremist Islamic group has infiltrated the U.S. government is a revival of McCarthyism that must be condemned.
“I thought it was outrageous,” Simpson told the Idaho Statesman’s editorial board Friday. “We don’t need to go back to those days. I thought we’d learned our lesson when (Sen. Joseph) McCarthy (R-Wis.) finally went down.”
Simpson lamented that publicity about the former presidential candidate from Minnesota stains the Republican Party. “Unfortunately, it’s not just Michele. The public says, ‘There go those Republicans again.’ It’s a bad reflection on all Republicans. I can’t believe the other four members she got to sign the letter with her. Amazing….That doesn’t reflect the House Republican Caucus.”
…
“Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., defended the aide, Huma Abedin, in a Senate floor speech last month. “These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit, and they need to stop now.”
“Added McCain: “When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation.”
And you just can’t get any more conservative than that.
Why do you suppose McCarthy is trying to dredge all this up again, anyway? You all running out of ammo?
Before Mike goes running off at the mouth, he might want to consult with Bachmann and see what facts she has in support of this. It’s a process unfamiliar with many politicians, but it save a lot of embarrassment. You get the facts, you formulate an informed opinion and then you speak on it, if you must.
Regarding Sen. McCarthy, history show that communism was fairly popular among the Hollywood left and that McCarthy was getting pretty close to the truth of a subversive communist movement. McCarthy has been vilified by the far left and their useful fools, but history has another take on him.
McCain could not “get any more conservative than that.”
Another Libby FAIL.
Whether the denunciation from McCain is right or wrong, the notion that McCain is a conservative is absurd.
McCain is a big government, spendthrift RINO liberal, just like both Bush 41 and Bush 43. Always has been, always will be.
From a News conferernace investigative journalist M. Stanton Evans said in a speech to his peers, “Evans quoted from some of them: he furnished material to a known Soviet espionage agent and He is a known Communist Party member.
Evans said the biggest piece of disinformation was that these cases had been cleared by congressional hearings. This was false. The chairman of one committee said the information showed a large number of communists on the rolls of the State Department. He added, It makes me wonder if there is any representation of the United States in the State Department.
McCarthy also had access to information about Amerasia, a pro-Communist magazine, and State Department diplomat John Stewart Service, who was arrested for passing classified information to its editor. In a major speech, McCarthy called the Justice Department failure to prosecute the case a massive cover-up. We now know that he was 100 percent correct, Evans said of McCarthy?s charges. The FBI wiretapped the meeting where the cover-up was planned and the case was fixed to get Service off. Playing a role in the cover-up was Soviet agent Laughlin Currie in the White House. He was a key adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt.
Another McCarthy target, Owen Lattimore of the Institute for Pacific Relations, was supposedly investigated by the Tydings Committee, which found nothing incriminating in his FBI files. But Evans read from that file, page one, which said back in 1941 that Lattimore was a communist who should be detained in the event of a national emergency.
What is all this McCarthy apologism about? McCarthy was disgraced, rightly, for staging a witch hunt, the chief aim of which was to expand his own political power. (Michele is terribly inept, by comparison. Or maybe we’ve wised up, a little.)
Of course there were espousers of communism in the country. There still are. Are we a communist nation? Not quite.
There are also, today, in this country some citizens who espouse Islamic Jihad and Sharia Law. Will this become endemic? I rather doubt it.
Tolerating this sort of thing is the mark of a free and open society. Chill.
McCarthy was right…but progressives will never let go of this bludgeoning weapon no matter the facts.
Espousers of communism?
How about card carrying communists that were in direct contact with Moscow working at our top publications and in academe and determined to undermine our republic?
Progressive media…progressive school system…progressive entertainment industry…progressive government, all influenced by Marxist ideas and all a result of the influence of communist operatives and sympathizers in America. Alynski’s influence has done the job of silencing all voices that dared speak in defense of republicanism, individualism, freedom, and property rights.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314
The President was mentored by one for heavens sake…of course Frank Marshall Davis wasn’t in Hollywood. He was in Hawaii working on a project he likely hoped would result in a “transformational figure” climbing to the top spot in American politics.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/frank-marshall-davis-communist-mentor-to-a-president/
If the woman sitting at Hillary Clinton’s right hand does have strong ties to terrorist sponsoring organizations and operatives, and it appears she does, we have good reason to be concerned”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312211/huma-abedin-s-muslim-brotherhood-ties-andrew-c-mccarthy
Michelle Bachman is an American hero as was McCarthy if you consider his concerns for American have proven to have been well founded!
Connect the dots and you realize we have come to the crossroads. Will we sell the American soul for good in the next election? One more term and the Marxist brand will be permanent and irreversible.
The world could sure use a revitalized America that stands strong once again for individual rights, freedom, and opportunity.
“Per Congress, the ACPFB was founded by the Communist Party in order to exploit racial divisions in the United States ….
And Peggy’s “World Net Daily” seems set about much the same thing.
Big deal. They’re both decidedly fringe. I can cope. I just hope that people like our Tina, who can’t, never get to be the majority … or it’s all up for America.
Ooooooh…now I’m dangerous!
Libby has moved so far left she sees an ordinary freedom loving American as “fringe”. It would be funny if not so sad.
In what way do you see WND as being racially divisive? Or are you so prejudiced against folk with “brown skin” (quoting you) that you feel you must avoid offending them even at the expense of national security.
Tell me Libs…Do we NOT turn in the guy with the bomb JUST BECAUSE he happens to practice the Muslim faith? Are those charged with national security issues with access to top secret information EXEMPT from vetting, or questioning, JUST BECAUSE we don’t want to offend them and even if we’ve done it in the past and it ended badly for America?
I’ll bet the people who died, and those who lost loved ones on 911, wish people had been more responsible about their duties in the weeks prior. Heck, I’ll bet the family and friends of those who lost their lives at Fort Hood wish Nidal Hasan’s superiors had been more responsible and cautious:
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-19/politics/politics_fort-hood-report_1_anwar-al-awlaki-nidal-hasan-violent-islamist-extremism
What is wrong with you that you immediately cry racism when someone is attempting to do his job! Don’t bother answering; that was a rhetorical question. You are so deeply partisan, and married to the collective, that you refuse to consider the consequences of your blind adherence.
“McCarthy was right…”
God help us all…
Those who try to resuscitate McCarthy’s shameful legacy in order to justify their current witch hunts claim that McCarthy was exonerated by the Venona papers. Indeed, the ultra-conservative Texas Board of Education has even had this revisionist history written into the textbooks in order to push their political agenda in the classroom.
But contrary to the McCarthyites’ claims, the Venona papers do not exonerate McCarthy. That’s not just my opinion; that’s the opinion of the foremost expert on the Venona papers.
Prof. Harvey Khler is the writer of several books on Communism, including “Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America.” He is hardly a Communist sympathizer; in fact, he has been a vocal critic of those who have downplayed the extent and significance of the Communist threat during the 1950s. Nevertheless, he has also takes aim at those who try to pervert history to redeem McCarthy. In the following transcript, he pretty much destroys both camps:
“I was the first American to gain access to the previously closed files of the Communist International and the CPUSA itself, located in Moscow, in the summer of 1992…
…But if McCarthy was right about some of the large issues, he was wildly wrong on virtually all of the details. There is no indication that he had even a hint of the Venona decryptions, so he did not base his accusations on the information in them. Indeed, virtually none of the people that McCarthy claimed or alleged were Soviet agents turn up in Venona. He did identify a few small fry who we now know were spies but only a few. And there is little evidence that those he fingered were among the unidentified spies of Venona. Many of his claims were wildly inaccurate; his charges filled with errors of fact, misjudgments of organizations and innuendoes disguised as evidence. He failed to recognize or understand the differences among genuine liberals, fellow-traveling liberals, Communist dupes, Communists and spies- distinctions that were important to make. The new information from Russian and American archives does not vindicate McCarthy. He remains a demagogue, whose wild charges actually made the fight against Communist subversion more difficult. Like Greshams Law, McCarthys allegations marginalized the accurate claims. Because his facts were so often wrong, real spies were able to hide behind the cover of being one of his victims and even persuade well-meaning but nave people that the whole anti-communist cause was based on inaccuracies and hysteria.
But if McCarthy was wrong on the details- and what is history but details- many historians today are both wrong on the details about McCarthyism and morally obtuse about the nature of communism. Far too many American historians believe that anti-communism or the search for Soviet spies was baseless paranoia. They recoil so strongly from McCarthy that they are unable to recognize that just because an objectionable politician cynically employed anti-communism does not mean that anti-communism was objectionable. The CPUSA was a haven for spies and Soviet subversion presented a genuine security threat to the United States. But, for Ellen Schrecker, former editor of Academe, journal of the American Association of University Professors, all varieties of anti-communism are species of McCarthyism. Opposition to communism, she has written,tapped into something dark and nasty ion the human soul. Blanche Wiesen Cook of CUNY lamented that everything fine and creative in American thought has been splattered and smeared by hostility to communism.
One of the oddest phenomena in the academic world is the nostalgia so many professor display for communism. The human costs of that ideology, we now know, run upwards of 100 million dead in the former Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, eastern Europe and North Korea. In light of archival evidence that during the Great Purges of the 1930s, the USSR was executing almost 1000 political prisoners a day, Robert Thurston of Miami University recently denied that there was extensive fear in the USSR. The collapse of the Soviet Union dismayed a number of historians who have lamented the sense of triumphalism among those who applaud its end. One diplomatic historian, Scott Lucas of Birmingham University in England, complained that revelations of Soviet spying were part of the continued effort to win the history of the Cold War, as if there is any doubt how that contest ended.
Most disturbing has been the willingness of many historians to blind themselves to historical evidence. As the new material has emerged from Russian archives and the declassified Venona documents, far too many historians have allowed their political and ideological biases to distort their historical judgment. Some have refused to accept the evidence, insisting, with not a shred of proof, that the Venona documents are all forgeries or simply ignoring them. One professor at Rutgers University wrote the entry on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for the prestigious American National Biography, a standard reference source. He painted them as victims of an American political framework and did not mention the overwhelming evidence of their guilt- including the admission by their own Soviet KGB controller. It is probably not coincidental that this professor, Norman Markowitz, is an open member of the CPUSA…
…If espionage on behalf of Joseph Stalins Russia is simply an untraditional form of patriotism, then words like loyalty and patriotism have lost any meaning. It is only a short step to proclaiming that Joseph McCarthys disregard for due process and reckless smearing of innocent people is a non-traditional way of affirming basic American values. Which is exactly the argument that Ann Coulter makes in her unfortunate recent book, Treason, which seeks to rehabilitate Senator McCarthy as a great truth-teller. Her only excuse is that she is not a historian but a pundit and therefore can claim indifference to factual evidence.
Facts do matter. And it should be a matter of concern to all of us when historians distort facts. Just as the views of Holocaust deniers cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged because falsehoods about the past distort not only our sense of history but our view of the present and future, so too the falsehoods of Senator McCarthy and the falsehoods about the widespread Soviet espionage directed against the United States must be answered. The debates about the McCarthy era force us to reflect about why a substantial number of American public servants gave their allegiance to a totalitarian regime that murdered millions of people and the difficulties and dilemmas of how a democratic society responded to that threat.”
http://www.raleighspyconference.com/news/news_11-07-05.aspx
Tina, you need to start getting your history from actual historians, not hacks like David Barton, who has no history degree. You can’t understand the present without understanding the past. Bachmann is not a “serious person,” as you (hilariously) claim, she is simply another McCarthyite. She has no evidence that Huma Abedin is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood or that she was not sufficiently checked out before she was cleared.
You cited the Center for Security Policy in this article. This is the radical hate group which was cited seven times in the terror manifesto of Andres Breivik, the Oslo shooter. The man behind the CSP, Frank Gaffney, was even banned from CPAC for accusing Grover Norquist (of all people!) of being a mole for the Muslim Brotherhood because his wife is a Muslim (seriously, he said this). In response, Norquist accused Gaffney of “racial prejudice, religious bigotry [and] ethnic hatred,” adding that Gaffney’s “whole life screams of bigotry, and what he said is just part of a pattern.”
And this is the man Michelle Bachmann is getting her information from.
These are “serious people” to you? This is what you think American politics needs MORE of?
Even your own party is calling out this disgusting, ignorant bigotry, Tina. It is long past time you do the same.
“Libby has moved so far left she sees an ordinary freedom loving American as “fringe”.”
No, I think that someone trying to make an “ememy” of the most astoundingly devoted Mrs. Weiner … is decidedly fringe.
Tina: “Libby has moved so far left she sees an ordinary freedom loving American as “fringe”. It would be funny if not so sad.”
That’s ridiculous, Tina. World Net Daily IS a fringe site, whether you are in the left, right, or middle. So is the Center for Security Policy. These people traffic in the most bizarre and fact-free conspiracy theories out there, all in service of an agenda. If you can’t see that, then you are a part of the fringe yourself.
Chris: “Tina, you need to start getting your history from actual historians…”
And you need to actually read what I’m saying instead of assuming.
My point is and was that communists (card carrying and sympathetic) wanted to infiltrate into our organizations: publications, entertainment industry, schools system, judicial system and political system. McCarthy’s tactic of using hearings to go after communists in Hollywood was over the top, unhelpful, damaging…he went too far…but his premise was right! He was right about communist efforts to work from within to undermine our form of government.
The point of my McCarthy reference remains. Our president was mentored and associated with known, avowed communists. His “transformation” of America, including his “forward” platform slogan, is based on the principles of MARX…from each according to his means to each according to his need. He thinks our property rights derive from government. He thinks the money we make, the businesses we build, belong to the collective and the state should take from us to redistribute to others as he ses fit. He is following in the tradition of Nikita Khruschev in 1960 when he made the political promise to America, “We will bury you”. Kruschev wasn’t talking about bombs…he was talking about infiltration and influence…and the United States has been moving toward that Marxist socialist model at an alarming rate ever since!
And yes, Chris, there is evidence that Huma Abedin has ties to terrorists or terrorist organizations which justifies an inquiry because of her position in the State Department (the inquiry is a standard procedure request of the committee on which Bachman sits…your opinion of her is irrelevant!) (page 3):
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/310198/questions-about-huma-abedin-andrew-c-mccarthy?pg=3
It’s time your party, and the duplicitous member of the Republican Party (John McCain), stepped up to the plate to protect America from communists and terrorists. It’s time you quit demonizing people for asking questions that are uncomfortable to ask. Its time YOU quit thinking of yourselves as superior, as Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, and Jamie Gorelick did as they attempted to protect the president’s reputation by throwing up a wall and then… uh oh….let America enjoy 911.
The Center for Security Policy is, according to you, “a radical hate group” but Hamas might have a sympathetic advocate in the State Department and that’s not worthy of a simple inquiry?
You have a strange sense of what is radical and extreme!
I’m not surprised, however, you support this President…a man that has no grounding in the principles of freedom and the God given inalienable rights of the American people but instead prefers the tenets of Marx.
Libby: “No, I think that someone trying to make an “ememy” of the most astoundingly devoted Mrs. Weiner…”
My Father, my father-in-law, and my son all had security clearance and all were investigated. This is an excellent procedure to protect our best interests since they held positions within the US military and US companies dealing with sensitive information.
Ms Abedin is not targeted as an enemy and if the normal procedures had followed the letter of inquiry you and I would not even know about it. But the left found this inquiry could be politically useful and so made it a matter of public scrutiny. It is Michelle Bachman that has been labeled and demonized. Idiots like McCain, who attempts to keep one foot in each camp to protect himself from being a target of the left, obliged and piled on.
Secretary Clinton is of the mistaken (foolish) position that you can negotiate peace with avowed destroyers and killers….there is a very good chance that this inquiry is important to National Security…we may not realize how important for decades. Just like we know now just how influential communists have been to our American fabric. I just hope America and Israel can survive, ideologically, under the soft, constant pressure toward totalitarianism.
Lets face it Chris…none of us around here are middle of the road.
Media Matters IS a fringe group. ACORN (even after it broke into smaller groups with new names) is a fringe group.
Is the weight of your argument against me really going to be based on your opinion about the “fringi-ness of sources?
I notice that not once did you refute the connections between Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood, the radical cleric or terrorists and Hamas that were asserted in the National Review article. You did not say whether such associations could be troubling in terms of national security and top secret security clearances.
AN INQUIRY IS SIMPLY A QUESTION. Why do you get soooooooooo exercised over a question being asked by persons charged with making such inquiries? Is it because you are afraid of what might be discovered? Is it because you hate the one asking the questions (including the Democrat)?
Ultimately the American people need to care about such things because it is we who choose those who lead us and staff the government.
I CARE whether the people in the State Department are loyal to the principles of America. Anyone can say he is “for America”…the man in the White House now is FOR America but he is for a Marxist America!
Hamas and Iran are aligned with countries that have Marxist underpinnings. Abedin’s ties to Hamas trouble me in the same way that Obama’s communist grounding bothers me. I don’t think either of them has the best interests of the founding fathers America at heart. I think they think in terms of a global Marxist model and that Hamas shares that vision. If that makes me radical then so be it. Damn straight I’m radical!
I’M RADICAL FOR AMERICA AS SHE WAS FOUNDED!
Tina: “McCarthy’s tactic of using hearings to go after communists in Hollywood was over the top, unhelpful, damaging…he went too far…but his premise was right! He was right about communist efforts to work from within to undermine our form of government.”
Well…OK then. On this we can actually agree. Wow.
However, I must point out that this is a backtrack from some of your previous statements about McCarthy, where you essentially said he was vindicated.
“I notice that not once did you refute the connections between Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood, the radical cleric or terrorists and Hamas that were asserted in the National Review article. You did not say whether such associations could be troubling in terms of national security and top secret security clearances.”
Tina, that’s because I haven’t read them, and I won’t as long as they come from Frank Gaffney, Michelle Bachmann, World Net Daily and the National Review. These boys have cried wolf and been caught lying too many times in the past for me to take their claims seriously now. When a more reputable source of news presents evidence, I’ll look at it. At the moment, I’m not going to take the words of people with such little credibility.
“McCarthy’s tactic of using hearings to go after communists in Hollywood was over the top, unhelpful, damaging…he went too far….”
Good lord … if you’re going to be bogus, can’t you be consistently bogus?
Hollywood was crawling with socialists and communists and all that sort of thing. Intellectuals (eternal nemesis of the Right) tend to that sort of thing.
It’s when McCarthy dared to insinuate there were commies in the Armed Forces that he came a cropper.
Please.
“Secretary Clinton is of the mistaken (foolish) position that you can negotiate peace ….”
It doesn’t suit you to notice, we know, but between Clinton and her carrots, Obama and his drones, those international jihadis have been largely confined and subdued … not irradicated though. That will take years of social work.
Never in the history of humanity has violence irradicated an ideology … quite the opposite, in fact. So climb down off that war horse, Tina.