McCainblogger Mike Goldfarb’s reference yesterday to Richard Clarke as “the consummate 9/10 Democrat” causes me to ask: Does Goldfarb actually know who Richard Clarke is (other than some guy who once appeared on Bill Maher’s TV show)?

Clarke is one of the few government officials to have sounded the alarm on Al Qaeda before 9/11, so it seems odd to call him a “9/10 Democrat,” especially since Clarke is…a Republican. Given the fact that Clarke perceived the Al Qaeda threat clearly and early, I think it says a lot about Obama’s anti-terror policy that Clarke has chosen to play for his team. Here’s some emails that Clarke wrote before 9/11 which reflect his 9/10 mindset:

“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)

“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)

“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)

“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)

“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)

“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)

“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2)

In stark contrast, it says a lot about Team McCain’s anti-terror policy that they’re pinch hitting James Woolsey, one of the few government officials who, among various other eccentricities, believed that Saddam Hussein was behind the first World Trade Center attack.

I look forward to Team McCain’s next national security call, where Laurie Mylroie will explain that Saddam Hussein is planning a chemical weapons attack from beyond the grave.

Today, the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Rights held a hearing on abusive interrogation to look at the role of administration lawyers in crafting policies allowing the torture of detainees.

Former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith was scheduled to testify today about his role in vigorously pushing to eliminate the standards of the Geneva Conventions and making the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay a “Geneva-free zone.” However, at the opening of the hearing, subcommittee chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) declared that Feith “withdrew from the hearing.” Nadler explained:

Despite his prior commitment to testify, this morning, Mr. Feith informed this committee through his counsel that he would not appear today because he is not willing to appear alongside one of our other witnesses.

Watch it:

Sources on Capitol Hill told ThinkProgress that Feith was afraid to appear with Colin Powell’s former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson, who was also testifying today. After leaving the State Department in protest over Bush’s policies, Wilkerson became an outspoken critic of Bush’s foreign policy and aggressively criticized Feith’s incompetence. From a speech to the New America Foundation in 2005:

Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, whom most of you probably know Tommy Franks said was the stupidest blankety-blank man in the world. He was. Let me testify to that. He was. Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man.

Nadler emphasized that Feith would “appear before this committee before too much time has elapsed,” adding, “We will reschedule a hearing at which Feith will appear so he can elucidate his testimony on this issue.”

This morning’s Washington Post helpfully corrects the record on one of Team McCain’s more bizarre assertions from yesterday’s conference call. McCain adviser John Lehman had claimed that dealing with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspirators through the American legal system was “a material cause” of the 2001 attacks, because, he claimed, sealed evidence was not shared among intelligence agencies.

The Post wrote today that “the report of the 9/11 Commission…disagreed with Lehman’s version of history” :

The commission’s final report, which Lehman endorsed as a member of the panel, gives no indication that any failure to share information on the bombing with the intelligence community had “significance for the story of 9/11.”

Instead, the report cites political and intelligence failures to understand the scope of the terrorist threat after the 1993 attack, as well as a failure to fully analyze the implications of the available information. It also blames the FBI and the CIA for failing to effectively communicate with each other, problems that were later addressed in the USA Patriot Act and the reorganization of the intelligence community.

Despite Team McCain’s frantic strawmanning, Obama is precisely right about the prosecutions of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspirators being a model of how a democracy should deal with a terrorist attack. The investigation of that crime produced a huge amount of background information that formed much of the basis for our understanding of Al Qaeda. The problem was that this information was not understood in the correct context of a global terrorist threat, until too late. The fault for this is bipartisan.

In addition to the wealth of information about Al Qaeda, by granting the conspirators due process, the prosecutions demonstrated to the world the strength of American ideals. On the other hand, the Bush administration’s lawless treatment of alleged terrorist detainees represent a betrayal of those ideals. By treating the attackers as mere criminals, rather than as righteous warriors in an apocalyptic showdown between Islam and the West, the 1994 prosecutions prevented the convicts from becoming martyr-superstars. Bush’s policy of Endless War on Terror has done precisely the opposite: By treating Al Qaeda as the standard bearer in a transcendental struggle for the future of mankind, Bush confirms bin Laden’s own propaganda, and effectively does Al Qaeda’s pr for them. McCain proposes to continue this policy.

This gets at the real difference between the Obama’s and McCain’s approach to anti-terrorism. As I wrote yesterday, Obama’s approach — as demonstrated by, among other things, his advocating strikes against Al Qaeda hideouts in Pakistan — involves intelligently analyzing and appraising the nature of the threat, breaking up terror networks, and going after terrorist leaders where they are. John McCain’s approach, on the other hand, is simply more of what we’ve already seen from George W. Bush: A lot of reckless talk, followed by reckless wars that get tens of thousands of people killed, and that divert resources and attention from actual threats while creating completely new threats that require ever new troop surges to deal with.

On Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) criticized the Bush administration’s indefinite detention of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, stating that the United States can crack down on terrorists “within the constraints of our Constitution“:

And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

Regurgitating Bush’s 2004 campaign strategy, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign blasted Obama yesterday for wanting to take a “totally criminal justice approach to dealing with international terrorists.” Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said:

The real problem is [Obama] having said that in essence, the 1993 situation was really correctly handled by it’s being a criminal prosecution, and these people were incapacitated. The reality is that I think most experts on terrorism who are non-partisan would tell you that that was a terrible mistake in not recognizing the full dimension of what we were involved with.

He also added, “I’m not saying they shouldn’t have been prosecuted. But it’s the idea that it’s the be all and end all that’s the mistake.” Giuliani, however, also once praised the prosecution of the 1993 bombers, agreeing with Obama that terrorists should have to face the U.S. legal system:

– “‘It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,’ he [Giuliani] said, ‘that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.’” [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

– “[M]any who were bruised by the traumatic event were certain that no verdict by a jury or punishment by a judge will exorcise the pain and terror that remain. … Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict ‘demonstrates that New Yorkers won’t meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon — the law.’” [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

– “I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead,” said Giuliani. [CBS Evening News, 3/5/94]

As hilzoy points out, the McCain campaign’s allegation that Obama wants only a criminal justice approach to terrorism is a total distortion. In fact, in August 2007, he stated, “I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.” Earlier this year when Obama proposed going aggressively after terrorists, McCain accused him of having “once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan.”

Digg It!

The Bush administration is currently negotiating a long-term Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government, which would codify “legal protections for U.S. military personnel and property in Iraq” after 2008, when a U.N. security mandate runs out. People in both Iraq and the United States have criticized the deal’s sweeping demands, including 58 permanent bases, “control of Iraqi airspace,” and immunity for U.S. troops and private contractors.

Because of these demands, Iraqi officials said they were likely to miss a July target for coming to an agreement. New remarks by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari reveal, however, that U.S. negotiators have finally backed down and conceded that the estimated 160,000 foreign contractors in Iraq would no longer have immunity.

Additionally, the Bush administration has consistently insisted that it doesn’t need congressional approval for the deal. Yet it appears that this stance was nothing more than posturing, as officials are now reworking the agreement with new language in order to actually avoid going before Congress:

U.S. and Iraqi officials negotiating long-term security agreements have reworded a proposed White House commitment to defend Iraq against foreign aggression in an effort to avoid submitting the deal for congressional approval, Iraq’s foreign minister said yesterday.

The alternative under discussion will pledge U.S. forces to “help Iraqi security forces to defend themselves,” rather than a U.S. promise to defend Iraq, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said. Although “it’s the other way around,” he said, “the meaning is the same, almost.”

As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence J. Korb notes, traditionally, SOFAs provide a “framework for legal protections and rights while U.S. personnel are present in a country for agreed on purposes”; they do not, either directly or indirectly, pledge to defend a foreign government:

The fact that the administration does not intend to submit the agreement for congressional approval is a testament to their own recognition of how the broad the implications of this agreement are and what type of debate it would spark on Capitol Hill and in the country.

As ThinkProgress has noted in the past, this broad SOFA with Iraq may be the Bush administration’s roundabout way of authorizing war with Iran.