This happened during Sestak’s watch on Deep Blue under the Bush Administration. Why is he acting all surprised NOW about how intelligence and homeland security was mishandled THEN?

Wasn’t he part of the system/problem? Was he unaware of what was going on around him? Did he blow the whistle, or “go along to get along”?

I’m guess “No” on the whistle.

For those of you who have an open mind (as opposed to being a spinmeister for Specter), try to find and watch for yourself the interview of Sestak by Chris Mathews.

Sestak was not the head of Homeland Security (as was Ridge) and therefore wasn’t in those meetings where Ashcroft and Rumsfeld applied political pressure to Ridge to change the color coded warning level at times politically advantageous for Bush. Something doesn’t “happen on your watch” unless you are the one in charge of the watch.

Even David doesn’t actually believe that Ashcroft and Rummy made their political pressure known to others. He just wants you to think that for his own POLITICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS reasons.

Distortion of reality doesn’t become okay just because it serves one’s own ideolgical, political or personal interests.

Diano-

Is there any problem in America that you don’t blame on Sestak?

I hope you don’t believe you have a speck of credibility here anymore.

Lee-
Ashcroft, Rumsfeld didn’t work in a vacuum. They gave orders, produced memos, briefings, etc. that anyone with a brain could have figured out had political timings. Heck, many of us in the public had pretty much determined terror alerts and the like were political.

Sestak was a three-star Admiral in charge of a (supposedly) important high level aspect of Naval security and intelligence. Do you honestly think that Sestak was unable to discern the political aspects of orders and alerts, as well as the beyond-constitutional reach of Bush administration policies. Sestak’s even talked about being in Afghanistan with some bagman with a case full of money. Can you really believe he had no idea idea of how the Bush admin was violating US and international law?
As far as I can tell, Sestak went along with all of it with nary a complaint.
From wikipedia:
“In the summer of 2005, Sestak was administratively reassigned from his position as DCNO due to a “poor command climate,” effectively ending his naval career. His removal was one of the first changes made by Admiral Michael Mullen when he took over as the new Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) in July, according to Navy Times.”
It wasn’t like he was kicked out for defying or questioning Bush policies.
It wasn’t until he switched to Dem and decided to run for Congress that he voiced any objection.

Of course, once he got elected, he voted twice to give Bush a blank check on Iraq (without timetables).

It’s my sincere belief that Sestak “in his heart of hearts” (sarcasm intended) is a closet conservative and was a supporter of the Iraq War and the Bush/Cheney policies (and he voted to continue them when he got to congress). I don’t believe for one minute that Sestak is the type of military guy that prefers diplomacy (unless it’s the diplomacy that comes from the barrel of a gun).
Everything I’ve seen or heard points to a guy that will do ANYTHING to win, without regard to honor, loyalty or honesty. I have no doubt he puts his own interests over his party, his colleagues and the national interest.
I don’t think he can be trusted to hold a high office, and I hope we soon see the end of his political career.

David Diano, the total outside insider.

Your theorizing is becoming seriously laughable.

Jack-
You’re the guy that doesn’t know Jack.

It’s no “theory” that Sestak can’t be trusted to help local Dems, the party or honor his campaign promises. Plenty of empirical evidence for that.

Sestak’s a blue dog, pretending to be a progressive liberal.

As for what Sestak knew and when he knew it (and what he supported at the time), good luck getting a straight answer out of him. If you catch him on something, expect “sorry, that’s classified” and no answer.

Actually, Sestak isn’t a blue dog, but Specter IS.

Sestak has said on record he DOES NOT support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, a cornerstone of the Blue Dog Coalition.

Arlen Specter DOES support a constitutional amendment for a balanced federal budget and has introduced a bill for a Flat Tax in every session of congress since at least 1993.

I capitalized those words so maybe you could even see through your veil of ignorance how ridiculous and wrong you often are.

Now who knows what.

References:

From Specter’s official Senate website: http://bit.ly/DmpRG

“Specter also said he has voted three times for constitutional amendments to require the government to keep a balanced budget, but none have passed.”

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/specter-and-the-flat-tax.php

“Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) today introduced legislation that would scrap the 17,000 pages of current IRS code in favor of a 20 percent flat tax for all individuals and businesses. The revenue-neutral legislation would allow tax-payers to file returns on a postcard that could be completed in 15 minutes.

“My flat tax legislation would make filing a tax return a manageable chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers,” Senator Specter said. “This legislation will fundamentally revise the present tax code, with its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions.”

That’s 100-proof wingnuttery right there. Presumably Specter-the-Democrat isn’t going to be spending his time dishing out that kind of policy. But will he really back progressive tax policy? If the Democratic Party leadership promises to guard his left flank, as they seem to have, without extracting any clear concessions on policy specifics, does that mean he’ll drift to the right? It’s hard to predict.

Sestak spends 31 years of his adult life in the U.S. miliary defending our country.

Specter spends 29 years as a REPUBLICAN SENATOR fighting against Democratic Party principles.

Specter voted for the Bush war.

Specter voted to fund the Bush war.

Specter voted to allow illegal wiretaps of American citizens without a warrant;

Specter voted to deny Americans the right of habeas corpus;

Specter voted to cut funding for a women’s right to choose;

Specter voted to cut protections in the hiring and firing of U.S. Attorneys, including his slipping into the Patriot Act language that “aided and abetted” Bush’s and Karl Rove’s politicalization of the Justice Department.

Ya think this Democratic Party primary election is abour trust? Don’t you ever forget that it is!

Mary-
Sestak was in the military for 31 years. How much of it he actually spent “defending our country” vs kissing up to his superiors to move up in rank, is a different question.
General Sanchez had 30+ years when he commanded forces in Iraq during Abu Ghraib scandal. How about all the high-ranking officers that went along with the war?
Sorry. Merely serving for 31 years, doesn’t mean you did a good job. Sestak wasn’t fired by Admiral Mullen for doing a good job, but rather for a “poor command climate”. The basic story seems to be that he was an abusive and slave-driving commander with a bad reputation, that got by because Admiral Clark protected him. It’s hardly a coincidence that he has a high (and maybe the highest) turnover of staffers in Congress and similar types of complaints.
It sounds like Admiral Mullen made the right call and removed a defective part from the military machinery.

1) Clinton voted for the Iraq War.

2) Sestak voted to fund the war (twice, and without timetables)

3) Sestak voted for warrantless wiretaps (and Telecom immunity).

4) Arlen Specter, introduced the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act. Check out his explanation on Netroots about this issue. He says the bill contained various other measures he agreed with and was confident the Habeas Corpus portion would be overturned by the Supreme Court (which it was).

5) choice funding? please site specific bill. were their other related budget cuts, etc?
Specter is a well known supporter of Roe v Wade.

6) Patriot Act was a 98 to 1 vote in the Senate. There isn’t a plausible argument that Sestak would have voted against it (heck, he voted to fund Cheney’s office). Please state the specific language that Specter “slipped in”.
There was a lot of language there that got misused and abused beyond the intentions of the people that voted for it.

Based upon the voting criteria you have laid out, there is little to distinguish Sestak as a progressive lion and Specter as a conservative villain.

My point has been that:
1) Sestak is not a progressive liberal
2) Sestak, by his temperament and general disregard for members of his own party, is unfit to serve as a Democratic US Senator.

We started out trusting Sestak and got burnt, when Sestak proved he couldn’t be trusted.

Specter voted for the stimulus package, came over to our party, has been endorsed by Obama and the leadership. If Specter’s votes hold up, then he deserves a chance to prove himself and earn my vote.

The truth is finally coming out:

From Today’s Patriot News — the “growing perception among political analysts and insiders across the state is that Specter is in more trouble against Sestak than first imagined”

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1251077112224460.xml&coll=1