'Casino Jack' in DC

365: I know this picture sucks, but it was a dark theater and I didn't want to use the flash from two rows back. From left, WaPo's Jonathan Capehart, 'Casino Jack' director Alex Gibney, former congressman -- the only one that was indicted for dealings with Jack Abramoff -- Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and former staffer for both Ney and Abramoff Neil Volz at E St. Theater.

It was the first public showing in DC of 'Casino Jack', the new documentary on the story of uber-lobbyist Abramoff's rise and fall. We saw the director's cut, so this version was bit exhaustive and very detailed. That was fine with me. It was a bit hacky and cheesy at times in its use of footage of 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' to punctuate some kind of loss of innocence Abramoff supposedly symbolizes (Washington was corrupted and corrosive long before, and long after, that movie, so let's stop pretending and telling ourselves lies). Though that doesn't take away from the on-key editing and expansive research into Abramoff's (and associates') deceit and decadence.

Adventures in hubris

Dick Cheney has endorsed Marco Rubio in the Florida Senate race over Florida governor Charlie Crist, now deemed an insufficient conservative in today's Republican witch-hunt climate.

Now read Cheney's statement in support of Rubio. Think about what he's saying. This man, who irrevocably altered America in ways too numerous to name at this point in the day, has the unbridled, runaway ego to say the following.

“Our country is at a crossroads facing threats from abroad and attempts from within to restructure the very foundation of our freedoms. America requires leaders to face down these challenges who are confident in who they are and what they stand for. Leaders who know that public service is about something bigger than climbing the political ladder and amassing greater political power…

“We can trust Marco to stand up to the Obama agenda that threatens our freedom, and promote clear conservative alternatives…Charlie Crist has shown time and again that he cannot be trusted in Washington to take on the Obama agenda because on issue after issue he actually supports that agenda. Lately it seems Charlie Crist cannot be trusted even to remain a Republican. I strongly urge him to either stay in the Republican Primary or drop out of the race.”

“Our country is at a crossroads facing threats from abroad and attempts from within to restructure the very foundation of our freedoms." Fear, paranoia, denial, self-loathing, it's par for the course for Dick.

"Public service is about something bigger than ... amassing greater political power." Laughable. This is the man that drove an unprecedented level of executive power.

And he says don't trust those that aren't one of chosen. Sounds like McCarthyism. What vicious dirtbag.

The Great Karl Rove-Chelsea Handler Rivalry

Everyone's favorite talking pile of mashed potatoes Karl Rove made it into today's New York Times profile of comedienne Chelsea Handler:

Signing copies of her book for about 300 fans who had waited around after her first show in Seattle, she muses on the fact that “Chelsea Chelsea Bang Bang” had come out the same week as Karl Rove’s memoir. And that it was her R-rated book — topics include third-grade masturbation and black Cabbage Patch Kids — and not one from the former Bush adviser that hit No. 1.

“I picture Karl Rove sitting there in his underwear, staring at that list,” Ms. Handler says. “I’m sure he was thinking, ‘Who the hell is Chelsea Handler?’ ”

But Karl Rove aside, I didn't know much about Handler -- other than that she had written a book or two and had a show on E!, or some such -- until I read some recent reviews of her show in Slate and Salon. The Slate piece (unflatteringly titled The drunken-slattern shtick of Chelsea Handler) described her as thus:

Here's the vibe: Imagine Handler hungoverish at the 10-items-or-less counter at Safeway, swinging her basket of goods—a home pregnancy test, a Boston cream pie, a handle of designer booze—up to the conveyor belt. She snatches a glossy tabloid from the rack for a greedy eyeful of hot-pink messes. Sniping aloud at the tackiness within with vulgarity in kind, she rolls her eyes so hard that she gags as she slaps enough magazines on the conveyor belt so that now she's buying 12 items. She swipes her platinum card with a contemptuous gesture.

[...]

Those who would yawn at her act as a played-out "trangressive" role-playing might turn to the second page of Handler's current best-seller, Chelsea Chelsea Bang Bang, with its compound sentence on the author's preadolescent addiction to her intimate anatomy: "I wasn't prepared for what kind of ride this little magic muffin was going to take me on, but I reminded myself that we never choose who we fall in love with, and I had no choice when my little hot pocket in a pita took over my life for the good part of the third and fourth grades." While any healthy man will squirm in contemplating this image, the more discerning of them will acknowledge the craft in the way the sentence pivots from puerile snack-time metaphor-making to a lilting bittersweet statement and back again.

Salon's Mary Elizabeth Williams was a little more assured of Handler's shortcomings in her critique, titled The unfunny business of Chelsea Handler:

I speak on behalf of slutty, Belvedere-imbibing women from New Jersey when I say: I want to like Handler. But every time I hear how outraaageous she is, I wonder what I'm missing. This is a woman who delicately refers to the female anatomy as a "Pikachu" and defecation as "shadoobie," so excuse me if I'm not seeing the transgressiveness. On her talk show, "Chelsea Lately," she never seems like a loose cannon, ready to do something crazy at any moment. Instead, she's as stiff and rote as any other late-night host. She just gets bleeped more often. It also doesn't help her badass rep that she spent four years dating Ted Harbert, who, in addition to being filthy rich and 20 years her senior, is also the president and CEO of Comcast -- which owns "Chelsea Lately." The heart wants what it wants and all that, but therein lies the paradox that is Chelsea Handler: She's built a career on being the crazy chick with a taste for vodka and hookups, but what could be more conventional than a pretty girl dating the boss?

[...]

The sad truth is that, outside of her "I love to drink! Look at my ass!" comfort zone, Handler has remarkably little to say. But, hey, if college taught us anything, it's that a girl can go far on "I love to drink! Look at my ass!" Like, say, the New York Times bestseller list. Hey, Chelsea Handler is pretty and she seems nice enough and, wow, she's daring enough to opine that Jon Gosselin is "disgusting." She'll be around forever and bury us all. In that sense, I suppose, Handler is a groundbreaker. Like Dane Cook or Jeff Dunham of any number of high-profile, low-wit stars, she's proven that a woman in comedy can be just as lame as any man.

I have not seen her outside of a few clips on ads for her show. So it's hard for me to judge. But it sounds like Handler's act, like Rove's, is probably not as novel and everlasting as it seems to be at first glance.

Shorter New York Times

Here's the NYT's headline and blurb today on Republicans, the SCOTUS nomination fight and the midterm election:

G.O.P. Weighs Political Price of Court Fight

By PETER BAKER and CARL HULSE 30 minutes ago
The retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens presents a test for Republicans as they weigh how much they want to wage anideological battle before midterm elections.

Or in other words: How batshit crazy do they wanna get?

The Newt Gingrich Comedy Hour

Live! From his alternate reality! It's Neewwwwwwwwwt Ginnnnnnngriiiiiiiich!



Defund the Department of Health and Human Services! Zing! Soak me in your delusions, Newt! Douse us with your crazy!

Saturday Night Live should just play unedited clips of Newt rather than actually do their own pathetic skits.

Nice try, Eric Cantor

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor didn't waste much time jumping on the bullet that came through his campaign office's window in Richmond, Va., this week. Cantor held a press conference yesterday to denounce the violence. After saying voter/civilian aggression isn't a partisan issue, he accused Democrats of blaming Republicans for some deplorable actions (shouting slurs at Democrats, threats of violence, among others) by those opposing health-care reform. Democrats are only out to exploit these incidents for political gain, he said, even though he was also "directly threatened" via the bullet in Richmond.

"Any suggestion that a leader in this body would incite threats or acts against other members is akin to saying that I would endanger myself, my wife or my children," Cantor said. "It is reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain."

Then last night, this:

Richmond police say the bullet that hit a window of Republican Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor's office had been randomly fired skyward.

Amid reports of threats and vandalism against Democrats who voted Sunday for sweeping health care reforms, Cantor said at a Washington news conference Thursday that a bullet was fired into his Richmond office.

In a news release, Richmond police said that the bullet had been fired into the air early Tuesday. It hit the front window of a building that houses Cantor's campaign office as it fell to back earth at a sharp angle.

The round landed on the floor of the office a foot inside a broken window pane. No one was in the building, and police say an investigation has yielded no suspects.

Plus, the Richmond campaign office isn't even in Cantor's district, nor is it marked as part of his operation.

While it's true that some will resort to violence or intimidation no matter what their party or ideological leaders say, it's hard to move beyond the conclusion that this is what happens when a party capitulates to some of the most extreme wings of its faction. Republicans constantly cry, "Communism!" and "Totalitarianism!" and some take it too far. You preach extreme rhetoric about health care to an already unsettled group from the '08 campaign (Exhibit A), and what happens?

So, true to the GOP pattern of the last year-plus, don't hold your breath waiting for a Cantor retraction.

Persecuted Wall street overlords throw temper tantrum

There's some serious arrogance that oozes from this New York Times piece on those poor persecuted Wall St. bankers suffering at the hands of the big bad Democrats (who've proposed such lukewarm regulations after Wall St. terrorized the American/global economy that this entire exercise is beyond laughable).

Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda.

Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.

“If the president doesn’t become a little more balanced and centrist in his approach, then he will likely lose that support,” said Kelly S. King, the chairman and chief executive of BB&T. Mr. King is a board member of the Financial Services Roundtable, which lobbies for the biggest banks, and last month he helped represent the industry at a private dinner at the Treasury Department.

“I understand the public outcry,” he continued. “We have a 17 percent real unemployment rate, people are hurting, and they want to see punishment. But the political rhetoric just incites more animosity and gets people riled up.”

Glenn Greenwald sums it up:

... that Wall Street is dissatisfied with the Democrats and the Obama administration reveals how extreme are their expectations of control of the Government. The second-highest-ranking Democratic Senator, Dick Durbin, recently conceded of the Democratic-controlled Congress: "frankly, bankers own the place." It's impossible to find a more loyal and attentive servant to bankers than Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. As the NYT article this morning details, Wall Street executives and their lobbyists have virtually unfettered access to the administration and to the President himself. You would think they'd be satisfied with the state of affairs in Washington. Yet so extreme are their perceived entitlements of control that even mere symbolic and rhetorical disobedience from the politicians they own -- he said some mean things about us -- creates a sense of righteous grievance: our government employees do not behave this way toward us and will be punished if it continues.

And, of course, the GOP is waiting to benefit off of this. The end of the story:

The Democratic campaign committees declined to comment on Wall Street money. But their Republican rivals are actively courting it.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he visited New York about twice a month to try to tap into Wall Street’s “buyers’ remorse.”

“I just don’t know how long you can expect people to contribute money to a political party whose main plank of their platform is to punish you,” Mr. Cornyn said.

Shocking. I can't wait to see the outrage when the tea partiers hear this....

And any excuse to post this video is appreciated. Big John Cornyn is here to save the day! Biiiiiiiiig Jooooooohn.

In case you were wondering...

Al Franken's still got it. The new senator, member of 4 unions, with National Labor Relations Board nominee (long held by McCain) Craig Becker:

Franken: This is an unusual hearing. I’m new the Senate, but it’s unique. Only other board hearing was for a chair. This was at the insistence of one member who held your nomination. Did that member submit any questions to you?

Becker: No.

Franken: Really. He, or she didn’t submit any questions over all those months. Huh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Harkin: Are your dues paid, Senator Franken?

Franken: Uh, for three unions.

Denigrated, disregarded and demoralized

In a particularly acerbic post (for him), Ezra Klein nails the state of the modern Democratic Party and its connection with base voters.

The loss in Massachusetts was a terrible disappointment to Democrats. But it can be explained away. Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate. Scott Brown ran an excellent campaign. These things happen.

But the reaction congressional Democrats have had to Coakley's loss has been much more shattering. It has been a betrayal.

The fundamental pact between a political party and its supporters is that the two groups believe the same thing and pledge to work on it together. And the Democratic base feels that it has held to its side of the bargain. It elected a Democratic majority and a Democratic president. It swallowed tough compromises on the issues it cared about most. It swallowed concessions to politicians it didn't like and industry groups it loathed. But it persisted. Because these things are important. That's why those voters believe in them. That's why they're Democrats.

But the party looks ready to abandon them because Brown won a special election in Massachusetts -- even though Democrats can pass the bill after Brown is seated. What that says is crucial: Whereas the base thought it was making these hard compromises and getting up early to knock on doors because these issues are important, the party thought all that was happening because, well, it's hard to say. It was electorally convenient? People need something to do? Ted Kennedy wanted it done?

There's no Democratic leadership. They campaigned on things like health care. They spent months debating it, which ultimately became the glaring problem ... it took too long and now they're feeling the heat of that drawn-out charade. And by the way, both chambers already voted for health care!

Now they're going to pull back on health care because of Scott Brown? They still have a vast majority. The filibuster is not the end all be all of the Senate. Can you imagine George Bush-era Republicans backing down like the Democrats are, and have all year? Not that I'm endorsing Bush-era bullying, but a large electoral mandate is just that. All you need is 51 votes my friends. Democrats are so afraid of being labeled liberals that they have consistently given in to a Republican party full of conniving demagogues that are only worried about securing power rather than the monumental problems our nation faces -- ones they have a sizable claim to.

This all wouldn't be a huge deal if Democrats had any balls or coherent sense of leadership. But, alas, they are ineffectual, two-faced, sad-sack losers. One party is too stupid to lead. But the other is too gutless. I'm not sure which is more disheartening.

The torture Right's tunnel vision on interrogation tactics

In light of word that Riduan Isamuddin aka Hambali -- the man accused of plotting the 2002 bombing in Bali that killed 200+ -- will be tried in Washington, D.C., former Bush speechwriter and torture enthusiast Marc Thiessen spews some predictable bile.

Thiessen's post from National Review's The Corner:

Hambali is being called the mastermind of the Bali bombings. That may be an accurate description, but it understates his importance. He was in fact the leader of a Southeast Asian terrorist network that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed turned to after 9/11 to carry out the “Second Wave” — a plot to hijack a plane and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles. (KSM knew we would be on the lookout for Arab men, so he asked Hambali to recruit a cell of Southeast Asian operatives to infiltrate the United States. I tell the full story of the takedown of the Hambali network in Courting Disaster.)

Hambali and the key members of his terror network were captured only because of information gained from KSM after he underwent enhanced interrogation techniques. (Indeed, it seems that virtually everyone the Obama administration wants to put on trial in civilian court was captured as a result of the CIA interrogation program that Obama shut down.) After 9/11, we were unaware of the Hambali network or its plans — until CIA detainees were captured and questioned. Those detainees told us what we needed to know to take the network down.

The torture Right refuses to acknowledge the actual chronology of KSM's capture and the disintegration of the Library Tower plot. Adam Serwer at TAPPED again explains:

... the most prominent example in the supposed "wave of suicide hijackings" supposedly disrupted by waterboarding KSM, the attack on the Library Tower in L.A., had been canceled before KSM was captured. Bush had bragged about disrupting the L.A. Towers plot in 2002, but KSM hadn't been captured in 2003.

Under interrogation by the CIA at a black site, Hambali revealed plans for a "wave" of attacks on U.S. subways and businesses and a planned attack using anthrax -- except as Jane Mayer reported in The Dark Side, those plots had already been disrupted by December 2001, and the scientist developing the anthrax was already in U.S. custody.

As for whether the information KSM gave led to Hambali's capture, some of it may have. It's politically convenient for the the GOP to draw a direct line between KSM being waterboarded and Hambali being captured, but that presupposes that the U.S. had no assistance from overseas partners. In the imaginary world of 24, all you have to do is torture a suspect to get information. But in reality, piecing together intelligence information is a complicated process, and it's highly unlikely that KSM provided the only information that led to Hambali's capture. The Bush administration's prior misleading characterizations of how useful information gleaned through torture was don't exactly inspire confidence.

In a separate post, Serwer documents the only part of America that's losing its head over the attempted attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is the GOP, while Obama's response seems to have helped his approval ratings, according to a Pew poll.

Torture has become a crucial plank to one political party's platform, as U.S. Senate candidate (and the current darling of the Right) Scott Brown underscored with his own endorsement of "enhanced interrogation techniques." This is the legacy of the Bush-Cheney years.

The downward-spiral effect of America's terror policies

In the aftermath of President Obama's statement today on the "potentially disastrous" failure to stop Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding an airliner in an apparent bombing plot, Spencer Ackerman points out a distinction that should be highlighted when discussing what has been called a breakdown in connecting the dots by the intelligence community. Obama said the intel was available, but he then repeated the line about professionals within the intelligence apparatus missing the connections.

Ackerman:

But it’s not true that there was sufficient information “that would have placed the suspect on the no-fly list.” As a U.S. intelligence official told me last week, there is a standard for moving someone from a person-of-interest list run by the National Counterterrorism Center to the FBI-maintained Terrorist Screening Database. That standard is “specific derogatory information leading to reasonable suspicion.” And that FBI-maintained database still has another procedural and evidentiary step to go through before placing someone on the no-fly list.

In essence, if Obama wants to change the standards of how one lands on a no-fly list, he should do it. But to blame officials for not "connecting dots" isn't really accurate. As the official told Ackerman, there are certain standards to follow; simple suspicion has to take that extra step. Ackerman once more:

Obama can say that common sense dictates that Abdulmutallab ought to have been on the no-fly list. But that’s reasoning backward from the conclusion. It’s appropriate after a failure occurs. But it’s not appropriate as an explanation for how that failure occurred. The standard for placing someone on the no-fly list is simply not met by the aggregated intelligence that Obama cited (and he didn’t unveil any new information).

For the president to hawk this as a connecting-the-dots failure seems to be either disingenuous political theatre to put on a show for our feeble minds, or just a misunderstanding of the issue.

Speaking of political theatrics, the administration announced that several Yemenis kept at Guantanamo Bay for years, then found innocent of any crimes, must stay incarcerated due to the "deteriorating security situation" in Yemen, all so Americans can know that their Daddy president is protecting them from the evil terrorists.

Reuters:

President Barack Obama bowed to political pressure from Democratic and Republican lawmakers not to send any more prisoners to Yemen as a result of revelations that a would-be bomber on a Detroit-bound plane had received al Qaeda training in Yemen.

"It was always our intent to transfer detainees to other countries only under conditions that provide assurances that our security is being protected," Obama said.

"Given the unsettled situation, I've spoken to the attorney general (Eric Holder) and we've agreed that we will not be transferring additional detainees back to Yemen at this time," Obama said.

As Andy Worthington has pointed out in his dogged coverage of Guantanamo Bay, this rationale is bad policy at best (in that it only threatens to radicalize more than it protects anyone's safety) and against the rule of law at worst.

“only at Guantánamo can fear trump justice to such an alarming degree” that, “if [the officials’] rationale for not releasing any of the Yemenis from Guantánamo was extended to the US prison system, it would mean that no prisoner would ever be released at the end of their sentence, because prison ‘might have radicalized’ them, and also, of course, that it would lead to no prisoner ever being released from Guantánamo.”

Our monarchical structure says we can indefinitely detain anyone we deem a threat. From Bush to Obama, this is set American policy. Can anyone claim with a straight face that any president in the near future will reverse these policies based on A) today's support torture by (at least) one political party and an alarming number of Americans who have been instilled with fear at every turn, B) our spineless, constantly-posturing political class and C) an irresponsible, for-profit mainstream media that will exploit TERROR! and FEAR! and DANGER! to cull ratings.

So at this point, we're left with what could be called Terrorball, the unwinnable game of fear and paranoia brought to you by Washington's ruling and chattering classes.

Our national government and almost all of the establishment media have decided to play a similar game, which could be called Terrorball. The first two rules of Terrorball are:

(1) The game lasts until there are no longer any terrorists, and;
(2) If terrorists manage to ever kill or injure or seriously frighten any Americans, they win.

Read the entire post at Lawyers, Guns and Money. He shares statistics detailing the number of deaths in America unrelated to terrorism, but caused but things we have accepted as normal, as in starvation, homicide and lack of health care.

Ladies and gentlemen, your America in 2010.

Nothing seems to kill me, no matter how hard I try

Spencer Ackerman chronicles the follies of the current climate around releasing Yemeni detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Congress and, more importantly, the administration seems content on keeping them locked up no matter what their status of guilt.

Critics of President Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are saying that the Yemen connections of would-be plane bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab ought to prevent the administration from repatriating dozens of Yemeni detainees currently held at Guantanamo. “It would be irresponsible to take any of the Yemeni detainees in Guantanamo and send them back to Yemen,” Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) said on ABC News’ “ThisWeek” on Sunday.

[...]

The Yemeni official declined to comment on the impact a lack of repatriation would have on the two nations’ relations. Nor would the official comment on the congressional calls to keep the Yemeni citizens at Guantanamo. But the official said, “The detainees that have been sent to Yemen were detainees that have been cleared by U.S. courts, and therefore are presumed innocent, or at least nothing stands against them.” (Few, if any, Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo have received a hearing before a civilian U.S. court.)

You know what you create when you keep a newly freed (and ultimately cleared and innocent) man incarcerated for "security concerns" of America? A man that screams BLOW UP THE OUTSIDE WORLD!!!!!!!

How much longer can we make the decisions we seem to be making with Yemen here? What is the end of this constantly moving focus on al-Qaeda throughout the world? How much longer can we chase these nihilists throughout the world while simultaneously serving as the prime recruiter of angered Muslim young men full of hatred for America? We are maiming their innocent citizens through inexact drone strikes. It's increasingly difficult -- as if it was ever easy -- to verify who exactly was hit in these strikes. It seems the U.S. will characterize anyone near affiliation with anyone in al-Qaeda as associated with the group, in a malicious, indoctrinated way. Tribal leaders claim a multitude of citizenry, especially children, as the victims of these strikes. Reality is blurry. But the plain truth is that innocents are being murdered by these strikes, and the effect on those with and without ties to al-Qaeda is immeasurable.

Think before thy speak

I love the way Limbaugh posed for his adoring fans amid his own possibly troublesome heart conditions over the holidays in the progressive Hawaii health care system.

The SEIU's site:

Whether he realized it or not, Limbaugh was praising the care he received from union nurses in one of the country's most progressive health care systems. On behalf of the labor movement and health reform advocates everywhere, THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, Rush!

Overeating and Oxycontin never helped either Rush.

Chickenhawks: President must over-dramatically scold and condemn from home (not Hawaii) to be serious on terror

Glenn Greenwald says Obama's calm is what he likes about him. This is in response to media drumbeaters straight from the mainstream media and/or neocon butcher shops attacking Obama for his so-called lack of a hysterical, over-dramatic return to "defend" us from terrorism and say "bring it on" in from the White House (or heroic as this fearful wing of the Right characterize it) after the failed attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253. I like that aspect of Obama too. Sometimes his glib aloofness is both a gift and a curse, but in this case, it serves him well.

Greenwald on the struggle to spin Obama's treatment of Flight 253 and our addiction to terror melodramas:

That's because Obama reacted as though this is exactly what it actually is: a lame, failed attempt to kill people by a fractured band of criminals. It's not the Cuban Missile Crisis or the attack on Pearl Harbor, as disappointing and unfulfilling as it is to accept that. It merits analysis, investigation and possibly policy changes by the responsible government agencies -- not a bright-red-alert, bell-ringing, siren-sounding government-wide emergency that venerates Al Qaeda into a threat so profound that the President can't even be away from Washington lest they get us all. As always, Al Qaeda's greatest allies are the ones in the U.S. who tremble with the most fear at the very mention of their name and who quite obviously crave a return of that stimulating, all-consuming, elevating 9/12 glory.

We are so afraid. Why? It's as if we possess only a hairline-sensitive ability -- or disability -- to not lose our minds when an event like Flight 253 happens. The sole interest for cable networks and the rest of the mainstream media is to whip up lame tripes about his bonafides, safe, safe, are you safe, what's Obama doing? Why is he "soft" on terror, which is ridiculously ironic since he's near a 5-front war on Musliim countries right now, with Iran looming in the background. That old right-wing state of fury and vengeance is really drilled into Americans' heads. I fear some did not learn lessons of the Iraq War run-up.

Buy war bonds

Atrios:

Can't wait until I can buy some war bonds. Hopefully when you buy them they put your name on a freedom bomb.

Maybe Obama will introduce a new revenue stream in these dire, kick-the-dog-in-the-mouth economic conditions: The Adopt-a-Freedom Bomb Program. For only $300 (or 30,000 cents, for 30,000 new troops), you can put your name, or picture of your family, or a "patriotic message for our fighting men and women" on a Freedom Bomb shot from the Uncle Sam Mobile (or Predator Drone) on those evil "Muslim turrrists."

Speaking of Muslims, I got a braindead chain e-mail today that proclaims elementary schools in Europe are backing off teaching the Holocaust for fear of offending Muslims. First off, this is transparently a dog whistle for political correctness fetishists. But even so, it turns out this chain e-mail is years old, not to mention bogus. Disgustingly-stupid chain e-mails are one thing the bigoted wing of the American Right does best, because its intellect-suspicious, xenophobic deadender following will believe anything to fit their narrative of a persecuted white race.

What did Osama bin Laden envision for America?

I've often wondered just what Osama bin Laden envisioned as he was planning 9/11. What did he think was probably going to happen in America if the attacks were anything like what they turned out to be: 3,000 dead and destruction that lingers today. Did he envision a war in Afghanistan, a holy war at that? In his wildest dreams, did he ever think we would turn out the way we did? And then, should we escalate when no one is sure what will happen, or, really, or whether we can ever claim this entire war was worth it?

Radley Balko gives his answer:

Here’s a question for the politicians who support Obama’s plan, as well as those to the right of him who think it isn’t warmongery enough: What exactly does “victory” in Afghanistan look like? Certainly no one in his right mind thinks the country is going to look like, say, Iowa in 20 years. Same for Iraq. Are we expending what in the end will be a few trillion dollars and likely the lives of 6,ooo-7,000 troops to create another . . . Saudi Arabia? Another Egypt?

We do have a pretty good idea how bin Laden pictured victory. It looks a lot like what we’re seeing now. He wanted a holy war. We gave him two. We’ve compromised our values, rolled back civil liberties, and let our politicians generally scare the crap out of us whenever they want new powers. Oh, and we’ve let the bastard live to gloat about it all.

This war should have been over the moment we disposed of the Taliban. The military doesn’t build liberal societies. They destroy illiberal ones (and they do it very well). I’ll wager we have at least 50,000 troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of Obama’s first term. In fact, I’ll bet it’s closer to 75,000. Lovely that this was the anti-war candidate.

I'm not convinced bin Laden had thought America would go quite as far as it did. Actually, I think going to Iraq was the unexpected, bombshell cherry-on-top for him, if he's still alive. At the very best, I think bin Laden expected America would come to Afghanistan and blitz the Taliban, have general "success" and leave after a few years. I'm sure the religious aspect was prominent in his mind. If he was anywhere near all of this, he's a genius. (I'm certainly not condoning mass murder, I'm just saying he would have had incredible foresight.)

But the economic costs? Humanitarian tragedies? Gitmo? Wiretapping? No way. And definitely not Iraq. Has this ever occurred to any of these neo-cons and hawk "tough guy" torture-enthusiast warmongers in our government and political establishment? That we gave him what he wanted and so much more? Doubtful.

Gouge Away

Andrew Sullivan characteristically explains the world we live in, the age of Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin:

They represent a real populist and authoritarian option for a declining power. In the face of a bewilderingly changing world, they stand for white America, the extension of its power across the globe, the elevation of torture as a core American value, the permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and American occupation of client states like Iraq and Afghanistan. They represent a contempt for addressing climate change, and an indifference to debt - both Palin and Cheney have records of appalling fiscal profligacy. They also represent religious fundamentalism as the core Republican political philosophy. Cheney supports a party that would strip his own daughter - and has stripped his own daughter - of basic civil rights. Palin would criminalize all abortion.

The appeal of populist simplicity in complicated, demoralizing times is real and eternal. Obama has not in office been able to muster a scintilla of popular energy the way this rump right has. In fact, his moderate conservative governance has defused the energy of his campaign in ways that remain quite stunning. In this emotional game, the far right has the advantage of "us" vs "them." There are no real solutions to deep problems - no actual spending cuts proposed, nothing but the use of force abroad, nothing in energy policy but more carbon exploration, no immigration policy that isn't obsessed with resisting any sort of amnesty, and on and on.

One imagines that the American people - when they have to decide on a president who will actually have to govern - will turn away from a Palin. But that such a farce remains the most powerful figure on the right should sober anyone with complacency.

We live in a fundamentalist age. And there is only one fundamentalist party. Unless it is beaten repeatedly at the polls, it will at some point govern again.

And he's spot on about Obama. I never imagined the deflation of so much energy from his support group. No, it's not feasible to match that campaign's fervor -- Obama's historical run plus the national disdain for Bush was a powerful combo. But he's not leading the way he pledged during the campaign. Adopting way too many of Bush's most egregious policies is no change.

Get off my lawn!

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) does his best head-up-his-own-ass impression:

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday that a Democratic bill to revamp regulation of the financial industry must be revised to win support from his side of the political aisle.

"It's a long way from being ready to go forward on any bipartisan basis," McConnell told reporters after Senate Republicans were briefed on the massive measure drafted by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd.

McConnell denounced the Dodd bill, saying like pending healthcare legislation, it is another proposal that "seeks to re-work a major part of our country."

Citing public opinion polls, McConnell said: "The public is saying to all of us: 'Quit passing 1,000-page bills (and) concentrate on trying to improve the economy.'"

Note to Mitch: Things need to be significantly changed. Where were you the last eight years? Hell, where were you last September. There's a kind of nihilistic quality to Republicans, but maybe it's nihilism in a classist sense. "I'm rich and doing just fine, so stop changing shit." Thanks Mitch.

Peggy Noonan steps out of Candyland to give us her thoughts

Peggy Noonan, queen of the Beltway drones:

NOONAN: There was a Gallup poll out this week that said, essentially -- it was a fairly broad poll. And people said -- it had gone up about 12 percent, the number of people who thought Obama was governing from the left, not from the center. It used to be about 42 percent. Now it was about 53, or so, percent of people.

I think the president, in a number of ways domestically, but lower it to a lot of busyness, a lot of spending. The promise, I think, of tax increases has taken people aback a little bit. And I think he has damaged his brand, as they say in the language of merchandising, which has now become the language of politics.

I think Jersey was the big election. I think Obama had carried Jersey, I think by about 15 points, just one year ago. Now, the Democratic governor, a strong supporter of Obama -- Obama had come and stood with him three times saying, New Jersey, vote for this man -- he just lost by five points. It was about a 20-point drop in support.

That tells you something. Jersey is a Democratic state, but they're worried about specific things. Unemployment, taxes they worry about a lot in Jersey, terrible property taxes, a bad economy. That's where their minds are. That's who votes in Jersey.

[...]

But the other big thing is that, as you said, partisanship -- which we thought he might be able to reduce -- the poison of partisanship has grown. It's gotten -- it's helped the Republicans. It's partly, I think you're right, the fault of the administration by not calling everybody in, not calling everybody from Bobby Jindal to Nancy Pelosi and saying, let's figure out how we're going to get health care and what the principles are.

[...]

I think the Democrats didn't notice that, when they were passing a stimulus bill that couldn't get one single Republican vote, it might have been viewed as problematic by the American people.

This is exactly the kind of bullshit that feeds through the Washington pundit class everyday. This unattainable fairy tale existence they call bipartisanship, where the machine politician and the fiery populist and the genteel conservative Southerner can all come together, regardless of party, and do what is "right" for the people. Shut up Peggy. When did that ever exist? Or if it actually did, it's long fucking gone. The Republican Party is completely unserious about responsible governing. The Democratic Party is void of any will beyond what keeps them in power. Both parties are corrupt and ultimately shills for whomever pays for their campaign to keep that power.

The Marketer in Chief

A Daily Dish reader explains Sarah Palin's motus operandi these days. It's a sales run. She's riding that wave, because who knows when it will come violently hurtling to a stop? Politics? Yeah, I gueeeesss. But this money making is good. She says, I'm going to put up with scrutiny from here on out, most likely. Why not cash in?

If you think of Palin as a politician trying to build a movement, it's indeed peculiar that she wouldn't want any video or audio coverage of an address that was, reportedly, delivered well and warmly received. But if you think of that address as content she wishes to sell at paid appearances, the restrictions make perfect sense. She wants to be paid to deliver this speech again and again, just as a movie distributor wants to charge numerous audiences to watch its film. If people see it online, they're less likely to pay to see it in person, and there will be some who decide they don't like it enough to pay for it.

Is it cynical and calculating? Of course. But you don't have to be a politician to shift things in Washington. Incendiary tastemakers Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity (who might be the worst since Limbaugh and Beck are mostly just selfish, ego-bloated charlatans while Hannity seems to genuinely foam at the mouth when talking about liberals) provide her with the perfect path. That means money, fame, a cult following, control, no messy governmental "duties" and power. The only place for her to go is U.S. senator, and that's generous. Really, she's doing what most of us would do. I predict after what is supposed to be a casual run for the Republican presidential nominee in 2012 turns haphazard and cartoonishly embarrassing, she will back away and stay outside the ring. But she will continue to lead her flock.