Online radio interview - Frank Gaffney of Washington Times

Frank Gaffney writes a column for the Washington Times, blogger for Salon.com Glenn Greenwald and radio host Alan Colmes then grill Gaffney over the charges that Gaffney makes or strongly implies. Greenwald then follows up by commenting more extensively on Gaffney's accusations.

As Greenwald says, the column is a "plainly un-American assault on our most basic constitutional liberties." Gaffney essentially responds by trying to draw distinctions without differences. Gaffney basically wants to call Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) a traitor for daring to investigate the use of bad intelligence to stampede the US into the Iraq War. He tries several times to "clarify" his position by stating that "No, no, I merely wish to point out that such investigations have consequences and that people should watch what they say." In other words, Senator Levin is a traitor who should be hanged for helping the enemy.

Just to give folks an idea as to where Gaffney is "coming from." here's a sample of Gaffney's language from an earlier column "With us, or else":

"In particular, the time has come to make it clear to those who are helping our enemies that they are not with us -- and that there are real costs associated with being against us.
"Every one of us can contribute to this effort by making an example of a company contemplating doing a lot more business with Islamofascist Iran..."
-------------
"To be sure, that $10 billion [That the Shell company wants to invest in Iranian oil wells] will translate into profits for Shell and its partner. It will, though, also afford the Islamofascists in Iran revenue streams that will enable them to support more terrorists, to kill more Americans and Iraqis, to destabilize the region and to prepare genocidal attacks on this country as well as our ally, Israel.
"Making such a huge, further investment in Iran would, in short, be a very unfriendly act. And Shell must understand it will be regarded, and treated, as such." [emphases mine]

Gaffney states in his current column (Which, as of 7:30pm Sunday the 18th, is not accessible):

"Still, as the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate engage in interminable debate about resolutions whose effects can only be to "damage morale and undermine the military" while emboldening our enemies, it is time to reflect on what constitutes inappropriate behavior in time of war."

"The Journal has properly warned that Senator Ahab's [Greenwald's note: the Wall St. Journal's name for Sen. Rockefeller Levin] misbehavior is likely to have implications far beyond the immediate disservice it does to Mr. Feith and those who labored so ably under him."

Keep in mind that what Feith and his subordinates produced was complete and utter crap that served exclusively to stampede the US into the Iraq War. ALL of Feith's conclusions were disproven by the Iraq Survey Group. Gaffney tries to claim that Saddam Hussein had facilities to produce chemical and biological weapons and was planning to get them to the US in the form of aerosol cans. Colmes then quotes Bush's 2004 State of the Union address as saying that Hussein had "dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." The ISG concluded that Hussein had no ability to hurt the US in any significant way.

"It will likely also have a severely chilling effect on the willingness of policymakers rigorously to challenge, and thereby to improve, the quality of the intelligence they are getting about tomorrow's threats.
"If there's one thing that really should be a hanging offense, it is behavior that results in our being even less equipped to deal with such threats..." [emphasis Greenwald's]

As Greenwald makes clear, the really shocking aspect of this statement is that it's so routine these days.

Gaffney demonstrates during the radio interview that he's very, very upset by having his credibility questioned in this manner and had to be told to stop swearing by Colmes. The simple fact of the matter is that it's no longer 2002 and some news programs are no longer willing to dispense vicious, blatant propaganda without questioning it.