Big Decisions

Just in time for September 11th, the Guardian on implications of the near-death of Al Qaeda:

Amid a mood of cautious optimism, some experts talk of a “tipping point” in the fight against al-Qaida. Others argue that only Bin Laden’s death will bring significant change. But most agree that the failure to carry out spectacular mass attacks in the west since the 2005 London bombings has weakened the group’s “brand appeal” and power to recruit.

“In order to stay relevant al-Qaida have to prove themselves capable and they haven’t been able to do that,” said Norwegian scholar Brynjar Lia.

Popular sympathy, which drained away because of sectarian killings in Iraq, has dwindled further this year. In Saudi Arabia, according to a recent intelligence report, 60-70% of information about al-Qaida suspects now comes from relatives, friends and neighbours, not from security agencies or surveillance.

Spencer Ackerman on the Guardian:

Indeed, this was the consensus from last year’s New America Foundation conference on counterterrorism: al-Qaeda is a spent force. I recall Peter Bergen, who knows as much about al-Qaeda as any U.S. analyst, predicting that it would cease to exist within the next five years. According to the Guardian, which admittedly may be too optimistic, the core al-Qaeda in Waziristan could be as few as six people. If we kill them, and if they can’t find someone to take their place, and if they can’t recruit, congratulations, America: war is over, we win. And this was the organization we used to think of as a generational enemy. So much for the “Long War” or whatever.

But even if the Guardian is only 50 percent right, is it necessary to pursue, for instance, a second escalation of combat troops this year in Afghanistan, if the goal is to destroy safe havens across the Pakistani border for a handful of dudes who can’t attract competent recruits any more? So much of bipartisan U.S. strategy has rested on the presumption — and committed such overwhelming blood and treasure — that these people are an overwhelming security threat. Now they just look pathetic. Will our habits force us to implicitly inflate their danger?

Important points here. If true, why would we still have troops there, or anywhere in the Middle East, especially Afghanistan? Obama has some important choices coming up. And he seems poised to continue pushing down into that spiral.

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Seven, 9/11/09 - A snowglobe released around 9/11/01 that my roommate was given. He says they -- I think an airline -- discontinued it soon after.)

Equivalency Exams

After that huffy-puffy dillweed of a congressman, Joe Wilson, whined on the floor of the House, at a presidential address to a joint session of Congress, there's been more talk of the Republican party as the cranky, reactionary, racist, unhinged party. And some moderate Republican leaders are publicly worried because these once far-flung cooks are now running the party. Republican leadership told him to apologize (barely) then were back in his corner by the end of the day, after an apology. They're endorsing this, largely.

What's bothersome is that the media has adopted, or sold, this version of a standard where these birthers and death-panel-believers are equaled to how the Left was during some of the worst Bush years. Puh-leaze. The media would have none of an anti-war congressman getting by with shouting, "You lie!" to Bush during some of his war predictions and declarations. That congressman, in almost every district in the country, would almost certainly have serious pressures to resign. The media would've called him a disgrace and hinted at an unpatriotic history chocked full of "tell-tale" signs that he was a radical. (He -- GASP! -- went to an ACLU event!) Weak.

So here's Politico:

(Some political strategist) Jones notes that such sentiments are not limited to Republicans
: “I lived in New York, in Brooklyn in ’04, and I remember hearing people saying, ‘When the Republican Convention comes, should we take our kids out of town? Because I don’t want them to be exposed to that.’”

Nor are Democrats strangers to having their crazy uncles take center stage. During the run-up to the Iraq war, for example, Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and David Bonior (D-Mich.) famously flew to Baghdad, where McDermott asserted that he believed the president would “mislead the American public” to justify the war. The trip made it a cakewalk for critics to describe the Democratic Party as chockablock with traitorous radicals.

Let's examine that, shall we? The Right-wing nutjobs that cynically think Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born, Marxist-Facist black nationalist determined to enslave white people and make us all pledge to Allah are being compared to anti-war congressman that WERE RIGHT about George Bush and Iraq. They were correct, for fuck's sake. Bush did mislead us into a war.

Glenn Greenwald on that above passage from Politico:

That's one of the most amazing passages I can recall reading. Even now -- when everyone knows that the President did exactly that which Rep. McDermott, in 2002, said he was doing: "misleading the American public to justify the war" -- those who pointed out that truth are deemed "crazy."

So those people were right. Then why is Politico calling them stage-hungry, crazy uncles? There are two standards here. It seems obvious. I don't know.


(This Tom Tomorrow cartoon says it all.)

One more thing ...

To build off that last post, on the media treating liberals and the public option as if they were agents of the fringe. Jane Hamsher flags this one from Rasmussen polling yesterday:

One major challenge is that while most voters oppose the legislation with or without a so-called “public option, that option is essential to supporters. In fact, without the inclusion of a government-run health insurance company to compete with private insurers, enthusiasm for the reform plan collapses among Democrats.

Imagine that. Yes, it's true, Democratic voters that installed Democratic leaders to the White House and Congress (based in very big part by their promise to support at least a public option in health-care reform) would be upset and disappointed by the complete 180-degree cold shoulder on this issue of such importance. No shit. But the media refuses to see these ubiquitous signs of what the majority of Americans want. They refuse to challenge the status quo. Report that so many of these losers campaigned on backing a public option. Now, they're suddenly concerned, or, rather, they suddenly felt health lobby and industry pressure to back off.

At this point, I'm not sure if I'm talking about Democrats or the media, but it fits them both. They're twin supreme sell-outs.

Yes, Someone Here Does Indeed Have a Fetish

NBC's First Read yesterday before Obama's speech on health-care reform:

Fixing the public option fetish: But the speech also will be a failure if progressives -- Obama’s second audience tonight -- are still obsessing over the public option a week from now. We've said this before and we'll say it again: Obama never made the public option the focus of his health-care ideas, in the primaries or in general election. In fact, he never uttered the words "public option" or "public plan" in his big campaign speeches on health care. But there is no doubt that the public option has fired up the left, and how he sells them near-universal coverage and lower costs -- even if it means no public plan -- could very well be the trickiest part of tonight's speech. Indeed, that the White House allowed this to become the be-all, end-all on the left ("Public option or die!") remains a mystery. On TODAY this morning, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that “there can be no reform without adequate choice and competition,” but didn’t say that choice and competition had to come from a public option.

(Emphasis mine)

Craig Crawford, of all people (I guess I don't actually have anything against the guy to be honest), on NBC News's assessment (from Chuck Todd, of course) on the public option "fetish" of progressives and liberals (via Crooks and Liars):

NBC News calls the public option a "fetish." Providing insurance to Americans who cannot afford or obtain coverage is a fetish? A fetish? Have things gone so awry that health care for all is considered a deviant concept. Seems to me that big media's knee-jerk defense of the status quo is the real fetish.

(Emphasis mine)

Exactly. A fetish? Liberals are the easy, buffoonish-clown whipping boys of the mainstream media. Fetish? That kind of language seeks to completely discredit and delegitimize a very basic public option that poll after poll finds that a majority of Americans want, at the very fucking least.

There's your supposed "liberal media" at work: Placate conservatives at all turns, and don't rock the establishment's boat. Go play with your maps Chuck.

But seriously, when was the last time Chuck Todd or some other TV "journalist" broke a big, important story? I wracking my brain here. When was the last time Chip Reid or Ed Henry told us something we had to hear, or didn't know already? These guys couldn't care less. They just want to keep their access so they can ride on the president's plane and be a hotshot Washington press corps sycophant. Fellas, you need Satan more than he needs you.



(Photo: 365 Project, Day Six, 9/10/09: A rip in the sky.)

Today's 365

(365 Project Day Five, 9/9/09: An old friend ... makes a point.)

Corportate Funding in Campaigns Looking Golden

On second thought, I think I've decided that Citizens United v. FEC should not be approved by the Supreme Court. The case, if affirmed, would usher in a new era of corporate money into political campaigns.

But it looks like I could be on the losing side here.

SCOTUS Blog:

If supporters of federal curbs on political campaign spending by corporations were counting on Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to hesitate to strike down such restrictions, they could take no comfort from the Supreme Court’s 93-minute hearing Wednesday on that historic question. Despite the best efforts of four other Justices to argue for ruling only very narrowly, the strongest impression was that they had not convinced the two members of the Court thought to be still open to that approach. At least the immediate prospect was for a sweeping declaration of independence in politics for companies and advocacy groups formed as corporations.

SCOTUS reports that the court will likely wait until early October to rule.

Too Little, Too Late

Here it is Obama: A poll that shows a majority of Democrats (not all voters) disappointed, or having no opinion, in the abandonment of a public option in health-care reform.

The Democrats will feel a backlash on this from the Left. The people that got them elected, the people they depend on to work them through election after election, the people that put up with milquetoast leadership and near daily retreat are sending YOU signals, Obama and company.

And as it looks more and more likely by the day that this "trigger" option, where we're all supposed to wait for insurance companies to make good on reliable insurance access and affordability over the next few years, will be our "reform." Doesn't that basically admit that a public option, that would be "triggered" somewhere down the road if insurance companies don't acquiesce, is a desired system? Why are we putting it off? To placate the powerful insurance companies, the masters of Max Baucus and the rest of the Democrats put in place to work out reform. How convenient.

Forget the Republicans. They were never on board, and Democratic leadership allowed themselves to be hoodwinked for months too long. Harry Reid is finally saying something to acknowledge the GOP saboteurs. But it never should have gone this far.



(Top photo: Day Four, 9/8/09, of the 365 Project. Let my health care go.)

(Bottom photo: Day Three, 9/7/09, of the 365 Project. The view of early 20th century socialist/activist Eugene Debs through the vantage of early 20th century capitalist/tycoon Henry Ford, in the National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C.)

You Tell a Little Lie and Then You, Drag Us Into Your Death Tune

I finally saw Taxi to the Dark Side this weekend. A viewing was certainly long overdue, as it came out in '07. But I knew most of the subject matter anyway, so I didn't miss anything but a well-made documentary. I hope director Alex Gibney (or someone) has the desire to do a follow-up somewhere down the road.

More importantly, The Washington Post ran three stories today that are stark reminders, as if we needed any, that the U.S. and beyond is still trying to sort through the post-9/11 chaos.

First, a report that the Bush administration sought to water-down an international human rights treaty to fit their warped, morally-depraved version of extraordinary rendition, or kidnapping the suspected without any consideration of their well-being during or after confiscation.

Instead of embracing a far-reaching ban on arrests, detentions and abductions of people without disclosing their fate or whereabouts or ensuring "the protection of the law," the United States pressed in 2004 for a more limited prohibition on intentionally placing detainees outside legal protections for "a prolonged period of time." At the time, the CIA was secretly holding about a dozen prisoners.

Foreign governments criticized the U.S.-preferred wording, calling it vague and saying that proving intent would be hard and should not be necessary.

In the end, the Bush administration declined to endorse the treaty's broadly worded ban, which at least 81 countries have now signed, including all members of the European Union and many nations with checkered human rights records, such as Algeria, Argentina, Cuba and Guatemala.

...

The treaty requires member countries to enact domestic criminal penalties for state-orchestrated disappearances and to compensate victims, but it has not taken legal effect because it has not been ratified by at least 20 nations, the minimum required. That leaves U.N. investigations of such cases in the hands of a five-member group chaired by a South African, which last year sent 1,203 new allegations of enforced disappearances to officials in the 28 countries said to be involved. A total of 42,393 alleged such disappearances in 79 countries remain unresolved by the group, according to its most recent annual report.

The U.N. group complained to the Bush administration last year about reports of the "enforced disappearance for a certain period of time" of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, a radical Egyptian cleric who was abducted by the CIA from a Milan street in 2003 and sent to Egypt, where he says he was tortured. When the State Department responded that U.S. policy bars such renditions if torture is anticipated, the U.N. group highlighted the gulf between the global treaty's view of "intentionality" and the Bush administration's view.

"Intentionality is essentially irrelevant," the group said in its response to Washington, "in the sense that any act of enforced disappearance has the consequence of placing the persons subjected thereto outside the protection of the law, regardless of the pursued purposes." U.S. negotiators had argued to the contrary in 2006 -- that proving intent is "an essential ingredient of the crime."

During the negotiations, China and a few other countries joined the United States in repeatedly attempting to slow the pace of the drafting, citing the complexity of the underlying issues. But a February 2004 State Department cable described the United States as "isolated" in urging that the text include language allowing those participating in enforced disappearances to be exempt from prosecution if they thought they were following lawful orders.

The documents also spell out how the Bush administration was "virtually alone" in objecting to a treaty provision stipulating that anyone "with a legitimate interest," such as a relative, be given an explanation and accounting of an individual's detention by the government as well as information on the person's whereabouts and health. U.S. negotiators called that provision unacceptable in a 2004 document, saying it "could impair national security, law enforcement, or privacy interests."

At least we have China's stellar human rights record to back us up....

Second, Germany's reaction of outrage at a German NATO commander solely ordering a U.S. fighter jet to bomb a fuel tanker that ended up killing as many as 100, most of which were reportedly innocents, in Afghanistan. The German government has swiftly reacted, and prosecutions linger. Granted, Germany has an election coming up, so I'm sure that didn't hurt the reaction time. But still, their anger at themselves, at the U.S. for criticizing German forces for their initial handling of the bombing and at their involvement in the war is a strong reminder of what international opinion of the war in Afghanistan is. And its trending in that same downward trajectory here.

I can't imagine the U.S. rushing to hold those responsible for possible egregious action accountable in such fashion. We usually argue over whether a death count is 20 or 40 civilians, then hope no one notices when we move on to the next massacre du jour.

Third, here's what you do when you have terror suspect. You put them through the scrutiny of a fair justice system. If a court of law finds the evidence against them sufficient, then you prosecute. This all legal. No torture, no kidnapping, no moral stains. The British can do it. Why couldn't we do it on a consistent basis?

A Big One

I'm not sure which way to go on this one, the Supreme Court case set to open tomorrow on campaign finance, which would lift the restrictions on corporations advocating for candidates or positions in American elections.

On one hand, the First Amendment should protect speech, therefore giving a voice to anyone that wants to use it. On the other hand, I feel like this could tip the scales radically and usher in a new era of corporate domination, as if we weren't already in an era of unprecedented corporate influence. And you know who mostly benefits there ... Republicans. (Though not entirely of course.)

Tough question. Again, welcome Ms. Sotomayor.

'The Veal Pen'

Jane Hamsher does the best job I can remember in describing the mentality of the modern-day so-called liberal establishment in Washington, D.C. Neoliberalism. With this attitude, strong liberal institutions don't exist, can't follow through on anything and are ultimately toothless against the GOP's slander and bigotry. Our progressive leaders refuse to fight. They are all show. They're only liberals when it doesn't really matter. Cafeteria liberals, you might say. That's quite an honest image. (The "Veal Pen"? Ouch.)

Well, someone prove us wrong.

(Photo: Day Two of the 365 Project. I'll call it burnt-out ideas.)

Hold On for Dear Life Kids

We have entered a new era. Intelligence is no longer encouraged. Dishonesty and fear-mongering are at the forefront, just behind their thick skulls. Cynical and morally bankrupt.

(Read that, on the modern Republican Party. Biting, and spot on.)

What Else Needs To Be Said?

After reading Ali Soufan's piece in the New York Times today, I'm not sure how torture can be supported anymore by the most deluded of torture apologists short of Dick Cheney announcing that tomorrow that, in fact, there is a God and he told Dick torture doesn't work.

In fact, it's made us and the world less safe, severely damaged our intelligence-gathering capabilities and exasperated the debilitating effects on our military from insurgencies on two war fronts.

Ali Soufan, former FBI interrogator, lays it all out:

The inspector general’s report distinguishes between intelligence gained from regular interrogation and from the harsher methods, which culminate in waterboarding. While the former produces useful intelligence, according to the report, the latter “is a more subjective process and not without concern.” And the information in the two memos reinforces this differentiation.

They show that substantial intelligence was gained from pocket litter (materials found on detainees when they were captured), from playing detainees against one another and from detainees freely giving up information that they assumed their questioners already knew. A computer seized in March 2003 from a Qaeda operative for example, listed names of Qaeda members and money they were to receive.

Soon after Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the 9/11 attacks, was captured in 2003, according to the 2005 memo, he “elaborated on his plan to crash commercial airlines into Heathrow Airport.” The memo speculates that he may have assumed that Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a fellow member of Al Qaeda who had been captured in 2002, had already divulged the plan. The same motivation — the assumption that another detainee had already talked — is offered to explain why Mr. Mohammed provided details about the Hambali-Southeast Asia Qaeda network.

And:

Some of the information that is cited in the memos — the revelation that Mr. Mohammed had been the mastermind of 9/11, for example, and the uncovering of Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber — was gained from another terrorism suspect, Abu Zubaydah, by “informed interrogation,” conducted by an F.B.I. colleague and me. The arrest of Walid bin Attash, one of Osama bin Laden’s most trusted messengers, which was also cited in the 2005 C.I.A. memo, was thanks to a quick-witted foreign law enforcement officer, and had nothing to do with harsh interrogation of anyone. The examples go on and on.

He includes torture supporters favorite claim, on the plot targeting L.A.:

Supporters of the enhanced interrogation techniques have jumped from claim to claim about their usefulness. They have asserted, for example, that harsh treatment led Mr. Mohammed to reveal the plot to attack the Library Tower in Los Angeles. But that plot was thwarted in 2002, and Mr. Mohammed was not arrested until 2003.

If there is justice in the world, and I'm not so sure there is ultimately, the Bush administration should be remembered for at least this one thing: By unlawfully pushing torture onto CIA interrogators, whether it was to find a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda or not, the Bush administration crippled our efforts in dismantling Al Qaeda and undeniably stained the country's reputation. That stain will take more than a few good-faith actions to wash off.

If we don't address these truths, what are we setting ourselves up for in the future? How long before we hear reports of kidnapped American soldiers being tortured? How will we react? Will we acknowledge the example we set for the world? I doubt it.

(Photo: Day one of the 365 Project. Day one being September 5, 2009.)

Retreat!

Spineless.

David Neiwert on the resignation of White House environmental policy adviser Van Jones after pressure from the likes of Glenn Beck ... yes, that Glenn Beck:

If President Obama and Rahm Emanuel think that letting the Fox crew drive out his appointees is going to help him win his legislative battles -- this was clearly the product of a White House more intent on trying to get its health-care reform package passed than dealing with the larger, more pervasive problem that threatens not just health-care reform but all of his initiatives -- he is sadly and badly mistaken.

I don't know what to make of these guys, particularly Obama, anymore. Well, I can guess where this is headed based on the trail of blood, but it's still discomforting.

I hate to do this (and never thought I would have to), but I wonder how Hillary would've handled all this? She's used to this crap from the Right. Then again, there's no proof that she would be anymore a stalwart for progressive reforms than Obama. Ugh.

A Needed Voice

I miss Molly Ivins. How much of an asset would she have been this summer during the health-care reform push?

I didn't search very hard, but I found a column she wrote on the state of health care in America:

It's from 2002, but take out some of the particulars, like the out-of-date statistics, and it could've been written yesterday.

Have you noticed that the health-care system is not working? In fact, it's falling apart. And the most curious thing about that is how few of the people for whom the system still works -- and they're the ones who make the decisions -- are aware of it.

...

If you have health insurance, the system is a pain in the behind but it works. If you don't have health insurance, you are flat out of luck. And in case you hadn't noticed, more and more employers are deciding not to offer health insurance, or using "temporary" workers or out-sourcing various tasks so they won't have to cover the workers.

...

The most maddening thing about the sheer stupidity of America's health care system is that the far better alternative is perfectly clear. Every other industrialized nation manages to do this better than we do.

The answer is universal health insurance, a single-payer system. Every time we start to get serious about reform, the right wing starts screaming, "Socialized medicine, socialized medicine." And then we're all supposed to run, screaming with horror. But if you want to see horror in action, try the emergency room of any large public hospital in this country. And for a truly hilarious experience, try to get emergency medical help on Christmas Eve.

...

We can't wait for the political system to get round to doing something about this: We need to help ourselves now.

I miss her.

Anonymous Eradication

At first, this seems like a nice idea. Using unmanned drones to take out pirates.

With more thought, this seems like a slippery slope. I could be wrong, but there will inevitably be a disagreement over where the drones can go, or a situation where drones will cross someone's airspace (a country we're not a war with, or warring in, mind you) and there will be some serious finger-pointing, rightfully so.

More on this later. But more than a little creepy I'd say.

A Smattering of Links

Today's rants consist of multiple points of disappointment in our political system. I have not the energy to go into detail on any of them, as they are either too old or too frustrating to warrant expending enough time and thought on. Here goes:

-- Conservatives, starting with those in Florida, are claiming Obama was planning to "indoctrinate their children" with an upcoming national speech to America's school children encouraging them to stay in school and work hard. You know, he was preaching that attribute that Conservatives claim to have bragging rights to, responsibility. But this was too much to handle like adults. Despite this not being a policy speech, they pounced on a questionnaire that the administration was planning to send to accompany the speech for the kids to fill out. To be a constructive exercise was its purpose. It would ask questions of them to answer how they could take general steps in their young lives to better themselves for the future. One question asked what they could do to help President Obama in his goals for the children. That (!!!) was deemed too suggestive and Big Brother-esque. So sad.

The best was from Crooks and Liars on Bush-serving Conservatives pulling their kids from school to avoid Obama's direct call:

Whereas starting a war based on fake information and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians - and letting an entire city of American brown people die - well, that inspires blind devotion, right? Which pretty much lets us know where these folks are coming from.

But, as I've pointed out repeatedly, Conservatives were enabled by those liberals in media once again. (Darne'd libruls!) Media outlets gave creedence to the claims by the Right. Just like the death panels and the birth certificate, the fucking speech struck the sensationalist nerve in the cables and the Web. They ran with it and distracted from real issues in this country, to the fringe element's delight. YOUR mainstream media is doing an awful job to your disservice America. They are incompetent, spineless sycophants. And they've allowed so much to pass them up in the last 9 years, ever since their masturbatory gagfest during the Clinton-Lewinsky embarrassment.

(It's no accident that that scandal, in the late 90s, was a coming out party for online news and cable scrutiny. Matt Drudge? A fledgling FOX News? Rush Limbaugh? They continually jabbed at the Clintons with unparalleled ferocity. Things sped up right there.)

And just look at those three things, with the rational reaction to such a thing:

1) Brainwashing children - Puh-leaze.... (smirking)
2) Death panels - Excuse me? (laughing a little)
3) Birther movement - You're saying what? (gasping a little)

No shame. (that was longer than I intended)

-- George Orwell live-blogging the beginning of World War II, 3.9.1939.

-- This is why I love Independence, Mo. (But when you read the whole thing, it's pretty sad. That's pretty much worse case scenario for stealing meat.)

-- Awwwww, hell yeah Thom Yorke!

-- The Post ran some powerful exposes of Washington Redskins ticket holders falling into litigious nightmares over strict ticket contracts despite the "legendary," long list of potential season-ticket holders in-waiting. They also showed how regular fans looking for tickets directed to higher-priced seats or allowing tickets to be sold by brokers.

-- Again, YOUR mainstream media. In this case, the "dean" of the Washington Press Corps (i.e. Uncle Sack-of-Bones) David Broder laying a zero of a column, enabling Bush for what crimes he committed.

There. Short and sweet.

Put Him Out of His Misery

As Principal Blackmon (look it up) would say, "MMmmmmmm ... hubris ... over-weening pride ..."

"I feel absolutely committed to the cause, to what God wanted me to do with my life. I have got this blessing of being engaged in a fight for liberty, which is constantly being threatened."

- Mark "Little White Lie" Sanford

Man, this guy's just begging to be a first-ballot nominee for the nutball politico hall of fame. He's not even trying to hide the act anymore. He's pouring it on thick. How long are they going to put up with this crap down there?

Everybody that gets busted or embarrassed in politics usually lies low and stays cautious with their words. It's, you know, sensible to not attract attention or further compound the humiliation and sheer pain. Not with this mother fucker.

Who's Ultimately Responisble for Failure?

An amazing point here by Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake on reports
that the final health-care reform bill, approved by Congress and Obama, will not include a public option.

It's just a guess, but when average Americans understand that "health care reform" means they will be forced to pay Blue Cross more money than they do now for worse insurance or be fined 2.5% of their income, I have a feeling it's not just going to be a couple of radical lefties who are pissed off about what amounts to an increase in middle class taxes. Unfortunately, since all the liberal interest groups ceded the bank bailout debate to the teabaggers and there was no pushback against the White House's decision to coddle AIG, the right owns that particular real estate and will be well poised to make the most of it.

For us, the question becomes: what are we going to do? How much do we care, how hard are we going to push Democrats in the House, elected by solid Democratic majorities, to stand up to this railroading and defend the public option?

Did the Left get caught back on their heels, admiring the victorious majorities, just like Obama might have? I mean, the momentum out of the gate for the Obama administration was quite pedestrian, I think. I understand the economy really sapped the life out of the young Obamas. I think the brevity of the crisis slapped them in the face, quite harshly. The Obama administration, just like a McCain administration would've been, were at the tail end of a grueling campaign when the economy nosedived in September (wow, almost a year).

Remember, when they all had a special "summit" at the White House and Bush chatted them up? And McCain, reportedly, seemed either highly uninterested or completely in-over-his-head nervous and unknowledgeable? That hit them an the worst time. They were scrambling to figure this out and also say the right thing to election-watching voters. That's an unbelievable duo to juggle. (We know how bad the McCain campaign was run and how much internal friction sabotaged a, when you look at it honestly, decent candidate. But then you remember that his judgment should be forever disregarded after he chose Palin. But to be fair, that economic stuff was not his forte. What timing, he must think.)

The point is, will there be ramifications, and how did this happen so quickly? I mean, not to sound naive, but where did this go so sour? Are special interests and lobbies so entrenched in our system, that this will be the new status quo for Democrats? Toothless place-holders for an eternity? When the excesses and colossal blunders of Republicans peaks every 25-30 years, the big bad Democrats come in to set them up for another 30 in the sun.

Thanks a lot Bush. Jerkoff.

This Poor Sap

I'll believe it when I see it, from The Washington Times, via TPMMuckraker, Alberto Gonzales says he's for as much torture investigation as possible:

We worked very hard to establish ground rules and parameters about how to deal with terrorists. And if people go beyond that, I think it is legitimate to question and examine that conduct to ensure people are held accountable for their actions, even if it's action in prosecuting the war on terror.

Zach Roth at Muckraker goes on:

Holder has said that CIA personnel who stayed within the Justice Department's legal guidelines will not be prosecuted.

Those people, said Gonzales, "are heroes and and should be treated like heroes for the most part, not criminals."

Gonzo added: "As chief prosecutor of the United States, [Holder] should make the decision on his own, based on the facts, then inform the White House."

We might be reading into this a little too closely. He sounds like he's trying to be as vague as he can be and still look like a victim of the Bushies. I don't guess he'll be saying much anymore about looking as far up the totem pole as possible now.

That'll be all Gonzo. Thanks for coming.

Queen Dumb

Michele Bachmann (R-Crazytown) said this recently at a health-care reform event:

“This cannot pass. What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass.”

That is a harsh and very irresponsible thing to say to people that truly believe the junk that spews out of Michele Bachmann's face. Is she equating a failed resistance to this vague "Obamacare" plan she has made up and committing suicide? Yikes. That might be a definite, "In hindsight...." moment of her shameful career.

Her possible excuse? She just can't help but to mix her love of Shakespeare ("Damn English queer") with her insidious lies

Who Are You Kidding?

Think hard about these statistics and their implications for our future and then don't tell me we should not run away from health insurance industry's death grip on our health care.

# 31 percent of young workers report being uninsured, up from 24 percent 10 years ago, and 79 percent of the uninsured say they don’t have coverage because they can’t afford it or their employer does not offer it.
# Strikingly, one in three young workers are currently living at home with their parents.

Our youth are increasingly going much longer than before to get their own coverage because their employer finds a way out of doing it, or the insurance companies charge much too much for them to get coverage on their own dime. This is getting WORSE. How in the world is a public option or single payer a detriment to the future of our youth and the health insurance industry's hold on our lives a trusted system by the anti-reformers?

via Eschaton

Awaiting the Coming Outrage

Sounds like affirmative action to me*:

U.S. TV show hires ex-president Bush's daughter



I mean, if we're going to lose it when a qualified woman works her ass off to get to the Supreme Court, why wouldn't we soil ourselves over this? Because there are two standards, that's why.

*One caveat: She doesn't have broadcast experience, to my knowledge, and is not a journalist. That's why.

Today's (Not Really) Flash of Genius

So if politicians, especially Republicans opposed to any real health-care reform because they're beholden to insurance companies and other related special interests, continually reference and worry about "what we're leaving our grandchildren" in the health care debate, why are they arguing for the more expensive option and keeping the status quo with minimal reform? They call a public option the enemy of America, but a robust public option, done right, would be cheaper in the long haul. You know what that means ultimately? That, yes, we'd have to invest in the near term and make some very difficult fiscal choices to deal with our debt while installing sane long term policy like a public option. But it also means that a health care system reformed responsibly now would benefit those grandkids down the road.

I bet they would be so thankful if we did something right for them. Maybe, just maybe, we could sacrifice for the future and not be so selfish, while hypocritically claiming to give a shit about the next generations.

The Dark Side

This guy....

No shame:

"I'm very proud of what we did in terms of defending the nation for the last eight years successfully," Cheney said....

No regret. Soulless:

"I guess the other thing that offends the hell out of me, frankly ... is we had a track record now of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casualty attacks from Al Qaida," Cheney said. "The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, 'How did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?'"

Whereas I imagine George W. Bush falls into deep moments of reflection and doubt in his suburban Dallas home these days as he works on his memoir, I can't fathom that this black-hearted fearmonger does anything of the sort. Then again, we do know he's a master liar capable of selling wars and unlawful conduct on many levels, so maybe there's a possibility that he agonizes over his defense of torture on a very personal level. But, again, I lean toward the former, the total embrace of the abuse of executive power to reach a perceived end. Not only do the means not justify the end that Cheney wanted (reliable, surefire intelligence gained from detainees on terror plots), but the end doesn't even exist.

Bushies are resorting to excessive distortion. They're scrambling. Dick Cheney, despite his eerie resolve, is scared to death. Scared not of this lame preliminary review from the Justice Dept. that will only punish those who were given unlawful orders from Bush hacks at DOJ. Not of the Obama administration, who refuses to uphold the law in what may be the most important series of implications for our country's affirmation of a two-tiered justice system since, well, the bank bailouts, which wasn't that long ago. Our rubber stamp of torture is recognized throughout the world. We're now the gold standard for torture, simply because it came from America.

What Dick Cheney is scared of is what will inevitably continue to trickle out through the work of the ACLU, a few journalists (notice not the mainstream media or Congress) and other former Bush officials that are just waiting to divulge what they know, when the time is right. I think we'll get confirmation that he was intimately involved (I mean on the phone multiple times a day), receiving intel from Gitmo and elsewhere and giving direct orders, laws be damned. And we'll find out that he pushed for the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Explicitly.

No matter how much he lies to us and himself, he knows.

------

Update: And in a related, embarrassing.

Cheney in Hooves

How come it's always Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and The Onion that are best left to articulate the absurdities of our politicians and media establishment? The Onion does a number on the torture debate here:

Fake right-wing pundit: "I think it's sad that the word 'neverending labyrinth of pain' are synonymous with the errors made by one loose-cannon minotaur who, yeah, admittedly went too far."

Is Using A Minotaur To Gore Detainees A Form Of Torture?

So is an ax-wielding minotaur where we draw the line? Or is it more realistic to draw that line at the death of detainees while in our captivity?

Ted Kennedy: Only in America

Ted Kennedy isn't real. (Read that.) He's a prime (if not THE) character out of a uniquely American story of a ruthlessly ambitious, powerful family that represented the possibilities of a generation and the promise of rationality and hope in the Cold War-era. He belonged to a family that zig-zagged in and out dreadful tragedy and enacting true, positive change amongst Americans of all stripes, but especially those in need.

The endless string of demoralizing heartbreak and recklessness only made the triumphs of society that he was responsible for that much better. If there was ever a comeback story, it's of Ted Kennedy. Whether it was assassinations of his brothers, the womanizing, the near-death plane crash, Chappaquidik, his divorce, his botched and petulant run for president in '80, the bizarre death of JFK Jr. ... the list goes on, he may have had the most fascinating life in American history. That may be a trite, impossible statement to make. But, come on, you couldn't make this shit up.

Dying of a slow, power-zapping disease was his destiny. It's almost like it's what he had to endure to live to this point, to have the "opportunity" (or curse) to embody so much mysticism from his family's lore. Add all this to the Irish sadness and lament rushing through his blood, if you believe in that stuff. His life is a biographer's wet dream.

I mean, can you imagine his final months? I can only imagine that in times of certain, foreseeable death, the mind is nowhere to be found by much of anyone. I would guess that your mind flutters in and out of consciousness between the many periods of your life and reality, if only fleetingly. On one entire day, you may follow one person, or idea, or feeling through a thread of your entire life. You revel in any memories you can recall and dissect. No matter how sad or unbelievably happy (which probably is favored in those situations) the memory set was, you went through it all and savored the opportunity to reflect. The emotions, the gravity, the sanctity of every moment is multiplied by ten. And you think that maybe you'll see your long, lost loved ones again, whether you believe in a god or not. This could of course trigger regret and disgust. But Ted Kennedy doesn't strike me as someone that would dwell on the worst. He got this far in life by being, at heart, an optimist for the prospect of America. He could've quit numerous times throughout his life, but he stuck it out. He took his kicks and he had to work for the big victories.

Barack Obama is the living proof that only in America can a man like him, from where he came from, ever be the elected leader of the U.S. It's one of the supreme inspirational success stories of our time. But Ted Kennedy represents the ever-present and widespread feeling of painful downfall and heroic redemption in the lives of every American. Ironically, he was of privilege and power (which didn't hurt the redemption part). It took that silver-spooned boy from the Ivy League to stick up for the majority of Americans that don't have every advantage. I'm sorry, but that just might surpass Mr. Obama in the true-inspirational-American-story category.

Mandatory

Slap this in as the final chapter of 9th grade civics textbooks. (Glenn Greenwald makes clear otherwise at the end, but I say yes, literally.)

Greenwald on yesterday's CIA Inspector General Report.

To those blithely dismissing all of this as things that don't seem particularly bothersome, I'd say two things:

(1) The fact that we are not really bothered any more by taking helpless detainees in our custody and (a) threatening to blow their brains out, torture them with drills, rape their mothers, and murder their children; (b) choking them until they pass out; (c) pouring water down their throats to drown them; (d) hanging them by their arms until their shoulders are dislocated; (e) blowing smoke in their face until they vomit; (f) putting them in diapers, dousing them with cold water, and leaving them on a concrete floor to induce hypothermia; and (g) beating them with the butt of a rifle -- all things that we have always condemend as "torture" and which our laws explicitly criminalize as felonies ("torture means. . . the threat of imminent death; or the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering . . .") -- reveals better than all the words in the world could how degraded, barbaric and depraved a society becomes when it lifts the taboo on torturing captives.

(2) As I wrote rather clearly, numerous detainees died in U.S. custody, often as a direct result of our "interrogation methods." Those who doubt that can read the details here and here. Those claiming there was no physical harm are simply lying -- death qualifies as "physical harm" -- and those who oppose prosecutions are advocating that the people responsible literally be allowed to get away with murder.

Disgusting. And done in our name. Take all the bullshit and spin and party politics and tragedy and let's think of what this is. Savage behavior from one human to another. And the likelihood that the detainee was guilty of any real conspiracy against the U.S. was/is quite low. Some of these guys have died in our custody. Their lives will be ruined, regardless if they're cleared. Yes, if they are guilty (after a relatively swift trial), they should do time. But I'd say a lot of these guys are chumps, and we take the advice to abduct them from the same low-level thugs we're taking in. We've pushed for extreme punishment against countries that have done less. How is this going on without country-wide, bipartisan, patriotic outrage? Because our system of crooks and thieves is too strong and vicious for us to break. The political has consumed the rational. We have stop this and correct the ship.

Too Much Paranoias

This song sums up CIA Director Leon Panetta.

I been dipped in double meaning.

I been stuck with static cling.

There's too much paranoias

There's too much paranoias

He's starting to lose it. This is reported the same day that the Department of Justice releases a 2004 CIA Inspector General report on some of the tactics, some illegal and egregious, by CIA interrogators. But back to the Panetta White House freakout. ABC reports:

A "profanity-laced screaming match" at the White House involving CIA Director Leon Panetta, and the expected release today of another damning internal investigation, has administration officials worrying about the direction of its newly-appoint intelligence team, current and former senior intelligence officials tell ABC News.com.

Amid reports that Panetta had threatened to quit just seven months after taking over at the spy agency, other insiders tell ABCNews.com that senior White House staff members are already discussing a possible shake-up of top national security officials.

"You can expect a larger than normal turnover in the next year," a senior adviser to Obama on intelligence matters told ABCNews.com.

And further down in the story, a nod to the turf war pissing contest between newbie outsider boy Panetta and Director of National Intelligence, and military insider, Dennis Blair. Guess who's going to win this one? ABC continues:

"Leon will be leaving," predicted a former top U.S. intelligence official, citing the conflict with Blair. The former official said Panetta is also "uncomfortable" with some of the operations being carried out by the CIA that he did not know about until he took the job.

You know what Leon? I think it's warranted if this kind of sinister activity is staring you in the face. I know Panetta had nothing to do with it, and he's just the poor schmuck that's gotta clean the mess up, but guess what? He knew fully-well what he was inheriting. And now he's flipping out. He couldn't handle the assassination squad information he passed to Congress. Why would he be ready for an impending hack job on the CIA? I would have never guessed. (Oh, by the way, I'm being sarcastic.)

Leon, you ever heard of Lynndie England? One of America's finest (scapegoats)? Well, some of your men are about to eclipse her (although she did have the bad fortune of being attached to her behavior through visual images, while CIA likely won't). The hammer's coming down on the CIA grunts (though it should be noted that some, like Spencer Ackerman, don't see that scenario as complete). The CIA will likely take most of the hell as sacrificial lambs of the Bush Administration's unlawful cynicism and stark abuse of power. (And not so fast Justice Department. There's a chance DOJ's argument, that their opinions were airtight, won't hold up.)

I think Leon was under the impression that they were all going to take a moderate, but palatable fall on this one. He's nervous now. I'm still not convinced that this isn't, as Marcy Wheeler calls it, a complete "whitewash." But it does appear possible that these investigations could lead up the trail. But even at this point, I would say it's unlikely.

Pre-Vacation Prep

This feels right.

Why Wasn't This Pointed Out Earlier? Oh Yeah.

The plot is thickening in the health care debate after a weekend where Obama administration officials, including Obama himself, gave vague signals that the public option was not the most important component in health-care reform. Today the White House is scrambling to make clear, "Hey, hey, hey, ho there folks. We haven't given up on it yet." I don't necessarily believe them, but that's the spin.

What is encouraging are signs that the administration is now vocalizing what has been apparent for quite some time now: Republicans have near zero interest in any meaningful change in health care. Hacks like Chuck Grassley were given (misguided) opportunities to help achieve the ever-allusive, yet always-heralded bipartisan legislation. Whether this lip service from the White House means anything is anyone's guess. Emptywheel's theory is that the White House is trying to cover its tracks without inflaming tensions with moderates or liberals. But does any of this even matter since possibly the only Democrats left that trust Republicans are the two that are leading the legislative action in the Senate Finance Committee: Max Baucus (Captain Ineffective) and Co-op Kent Conrad.

The mainstream media share the blame in sabotaging any honest, rational discourse (as usual). The Economist:

By pitting Barack Obama and his moderate allies in Congress against the more vocal fringes of the Republican Party, the media has moved the centre of the debate over reform far to the right. Add to this dynamic the idea that bipartisanship equals moderation and you may wonder, how can a health-care proposal be moderate if it attracts no Republican support?

But the truth is that Mr Obama has all but ceded control of reform to the likes of Max Baucus and other moderate senators. And if the media focused on that, we'd see that the debate over health care is occurring in the middle of the political spectrum, with the main focus on the "gang of six". As for bipartisanship, on this issue (and perhaps many others) it seems like a faulty measurement of moderation—how can it be accurate if the Republican's chief negotiator, the relatively moderate Chuck Grassley, says he might vote against a bill that gives him everything he wants? (Emphasis mine)

At least the words "public option" are back in the cable news lexicon. But let's not ever forget the creedence the mainstream media awarded the "death panel" meme driven by no other than everyone's favorite McCarthyite and her Facebook page. If there is a God, I hope he or she will grace us with a Palin-Romney GOP ticket in 2012 ... devolution meets top-notch hucksterism. Please let it be so.

Obligatory Annual Huckabee Post

I don't think about Mike Huckabee very often. In fact, I've tried to whitewash his flapping jowls out of my fragile little mind. But he's caught my attention twice in the last few days. I guess you can only keep an evangelical down for so long before Fox gives him his own TV show.

I happened to catch the opening segment Saturday. It was an accident, I swear. Before long, Huckabee hooked me in with his smooth Southern folksiness and plainspoken conviction on the coming socialism that Barack Obama was surely installing into the U.S.

But really, it was a near-stunning display of dishonesty regarding health care. Death panels, rationing, taxpayer-funded abortions (where he was especially vile, making frightening inferences and far-fetched connections), he hit all wingnut fetishes of the day. The misconceptions were not only laughable, but completely warmed-over after the week of debunking they had gone through. Mike can't even time his screwball rhetoric to match the news cycle, apparently.

And he talks to his audience as if they were children, with his mommy voice.

See it here. (I'm sorry that Fox wouldn't provide a working embed code for their crappy video player....)

Then Glenn Greenwald notes that Huckabee ridiculed U.S. policy toward Israel's illegal settlements while he was in Israel. And it seems he was there to do just that: desecrate the Obama administration's in front of militaristic Israeli leaders.

Now ripping policy overseas is fair game in many cases. Can it be quite cowardly? Sure, but definitely not always. If U.S. policy is to allow Israel to have their way in settling territory that isn't theirs (Bush adm.), which sounds illegal to me, I would say it's okay to speak up in a foreign country to denounce what the U.S. condones. But if U.S. policy is to limit (barely) those unlawful settlements (while continuing to pump money and support to Israel), I just don't see the justification. But that's what he did, so there.

Possibly more important is that no one on the Right, nor in the press will give him a hard time about this. They'll certainly rip Al Gore or Jimmy Carter for speaking out, but not when it's their own. The hypocrisy of the Right is, again, shameful. (Why do I act surprised in these moments?)

But more disappointing (but also not shocking) is the willingness of the mainstream media to lift nary a finger to question Huckabee's motives. There are two standards here when it comes to dissent from the Left. MoveOn, Gore, Code Pink, war protesters, "filthy hippies," everyone is lumped into some kind of moonbat category by the MSM. On the Right, the press recognizes patriotic "democracy in action," from town halls to a fervent, again patriotic, support for all things war. I think This Modern World nails it here. (I especially like the menacing Harry Reid in the background.)

As for Huck, I'm waiting for him to come out of the birther closet. I guess we'll then know (if it's possible to "know" anymore) that he's an opportunistic hack trying to out-Palin Palin herself. Hey, those wingnuts don't pledge their loyalty to just anyone these days.

We've All Got Scars, They Should Have 'Em Too

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey has stepped down from lobbying firm DLA Piper after the drug companies they lobby for spoke out against Armey's blatant resistance to any kind of health-care reform that will pressure private insurance with a public option.

See, now these drug companies are "all about" reform since the White House has clandestinely brokered an $80M deal with the industry to back the lukewarm reform that will inevitably come from Washington. That means Armey, and his FreedomWorks-touting cronyism, had to go.

Sorry Dick. You're no longer needed. But, you will be receiving a hefty check.

Meanwhile, check out Armey stuttering through a defense of killing reform on PBS Thursday night, I believe technically before he left DLA Piper:

Botched

You know Republicans are laughing at us right now, don't you? Record level of majority mandate and power is something Democrats have squandered in a flash in these young days of "progressive change."

Blowing It

I like to think big picture. You have to, right, in this world? If you're not a couple of steps ahead of something, you might as well be SOL. I subscribe to this theory for most important things in my life. Why not apply it to our elected leaders? Namely, the spineless Democrats.

Let's look at the facts of the last year or two, shall we?

1. The U.S. has a president elected decisively in most areas of the nation (west/east/north) as he ran on one major domestic issue: health-care reform.

2. In the last 2.5 years, the country has elected a sizable, solid majority in Congress. In fact, the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate, a filibuster majority.

3. A Republican party beaten to a pulp by their own unlawful and incompetent style of governing (or is it anti-governing?) through a national security crisis, record income equality, fake wars, botched wars, spying on their own citizens, black sites and Katrina.

You add those three, what do you get? A certified, powerful majority in government to do what you said you'd do. It's a democracy people. Do what we all elected you to do, as you said you would, as I thought we all understood you would do in really fighting for health care, strong climate legislation and at least an acknowledgment that our country's policies toward gay citizens is atrocious. Give us something.

Eschaton:

I appreciate the "an ok bill is better than no bill" arguments, but things have changed since 2004. Health costs have continued to go up at absurd rates. Dems have 60 senators, a big majority in the House, and we just elected a popular president whose central campaign issue was... health care reform. There can be incremental improvements later, possibly, but they can also make it worse. Given the way things work in that stupid town, we get one big bite at the apple. An "ok" bill lets the insurance company skimmers keep stealing their share for doing nothing useful other than denying people care. Maybe it means they get to do this a bit less aggressively than they do now, and maybe it means some more people get somewhat better health care, but it also leaves the skimmers in place.

I understand that not everyone is expected to walk in lock-step, but, come on. Act like something you talked up is going to happen. You'll claim Iraq, but that was winding down anyway (Bush's old military is now Obama's. Remember that when you hear from these generals and military officials.) And you think you're headed to "bipartisan" education policy in 2013? You've seen how old white people reacted when they thought you were going to send them naked out in the snowy woods at a certain age? What do you think will happen when you try to "SOCIALIZE!!!" all the kids' schools? OUR CHILDREN? With you godless, savage Democrats that will only force abortions and indoctrinate the State into malleable brains? No thanks Commie!

Ultimately (if it hasn't happened already) the Right and the press will detest Nancy Pelosi as vehemently as the Left did Tom DeLay. But you know what the difference is between those two strong-arms of the House? "The Hammer" DeLay was a crook and an influence peddler. The Right's big problem with Pelosi? She doesn't have a dick.

Me Knowing the Truth, I Cannot Concur

I hate to be so goddamned bitter all the time, but it gets sillier everyday with the lingering effects of the rank corpse that was the Bush adm. and their facilitators (and willing heirs) in the Obama White House. And this could either be a turning point or a grave dive into the further perverting of the law.

So now here's Lyle Denniston on those detainee abuse photos that Obama initially felt a need to be released, then quickly reversed and never looked back. Now he's been convinced to take this to the Supreme Court. Wow. From SCOTUS Blog:

Whether the Court actually rules on the issue, however, appears to depend upon whether the Administration is able, when Congress returns from summer break, to persuade the lawmakers to change the federal law at issue. The disclosure issue arises under the Freedom of Information Act, and proposals are now pending in Congress to undo the Second Circuit’s interpretation of the FOIA section at issue. If the legislation passes, the photos would be protected from public release, and there would be nothing left at issue legally. (There are no constitutional issues even implicit in this dispute; no one is claiming a constitutional basis for public access to the abuse photos.)

Although the case focuses on a single two-word phrase in one section of the FOIA, the dispute actually has major significance for transparency in wartime: at issue is whether the government can prevent the public disclosure of unclassified evidence of military misconduct during wartime, based on a generalized claim that release will threaten harm to U.S. military forces in the field.

Welcome to the Supreme Court Ms. Sotomayor.

The White Man Claims He Can Fly

Carrie Johnson of The Washington Post held an online discussion today on the e-mails and transcripts the House Judiciary Committee released yesterday that firmly implicate Karl Rove and Harriett Miers having a deep involvement in the firing U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico. Why? All because Iglesias was deemed insufficiently political and partisan in his treatment of Democrats in the state. I think it's clear these two were playing point for this effort to purge other attorneys that wouldn't kiss Republican ass. Clearly illegal....

One questioner/commenter put this to WaPo's Johnson, who writes about Justice Dept. issues:

Silver Spring, MD: I remember the days after the election when there was talk of investigations and trials about the Bush administration. My neighbor, who is even more liberal than me, was thirsting for retribution against Rove, Cheney, Bush, et al. I told him "no." It is simply not in the nature of Americans to do that; we are always wanting to "move on" to the next thing.

For all of the anger and denials around Rove and the firing of the prosecutors a few years ago, I think most Americans today would shrug and say:

"Sure, Rove and the administration wanted to boot the appointed prosecutors who were not supporting their agenda. We don't have a tape of him saying that directly, but everyone knew it. So what? It's 2009 and we have a lot of important things going on NOW."

America, always moving forward.

Carrie Johnson: Thanks for your comments. You've hit on a real, ongoing point of debate here.

Not in the nature of Americans? To obey the law? I think we're all taught and encouraged from birth to death to follow the law in America. So no, I don't want "move on," look ahead and forget the past and feel American about it. You're letting the crooks get the best of you. This is a two-tiered legal system you're supporting. And you ain't on the good one. But apologize and grovel in the name of your superiors. They see nothing wrong with it....

And Carrie Johnson's answer was a disappointment also. She was just happy thinking this makes a case for "middle of the road" conventional approaches to this, but everyone here knows that they should (but won't) be prosecuted for tampering here.

You want to know what this comes down to? David Kurtz at TPM sums it up quite aptly with his simultaneously delightful and depressing Harriett Miers personality test. Kurtz:

If you were White House counsel and someone from the White House political shop approached you, just before the midterm elections, about intervening with the Justice Department to help out a congressman from your party under criminal investigation, you would:

(a) Fire his ass on the spot.
(b) Drop kick him from the West Wing to a closet-sized office in the EEOB, never to be heard from again.
(c) Send a memo to everyone in the political office warning against any contacts with DOJ officials regarding any ongoing investigations.
(d) Get the deputy attorney general on the phone and see whether you could get him to publicly exonerate the congressman, then dutifully email back the political operative to report on how the call went.

If you answered (d), you're qualified to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

That was the definitive Harriett Miers as she tried to bailout then-Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Corrupt) on his ultimately losing election day. She took orders from the bloodsuckers in the White House's charged political side, led by chief hit-man Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove, to intimidate the Department of Justice, or at least try to see how far being a top-notch President Bush-crony got ya.

MC Rove knows where it gets ya.



Next Day Update: AP's Matt Apuzzo breaks it down to almost elementary proportions. But that's what's needed at a time where the bar is continually raised in what our officials have to do to be punished.

Big Days are Coming, About a Mile Wide

Dan Froomkin is back, now at Huffington Post, and he reminds us just what is on deck for Obama. We'll know so much more about our president in the next couple of months than we learned in the first seven.

Either he:

A) bartered some kind of highly-concessionary agreement between the mighty insurance companies that allow him to show a fair amount of glitter to the actual heaps they receive, which will, in effect, make the insurance companies even more invincible, (as Froomkin calls the "community organizer Obama"),

or

B) Obama completely folded and literally botched the entire overhaul effort through a rash of misconceptions, naivete and bipartisan-for-bipartisan's-sake behavior by a band of stooges. At this point, it would be fair to judge the Obama administration as only there to play the fool for any giant conglomerate or corporation that intimidates them or threatens them through former executives that mine the halls of our federal government as presidentially-appointed positions of federal budget power. (As Froomkin calls Obama-as-pushover scenario)

Hard to believe isn't it? It doesn't sound right, and it's not easy to comprehend at all times. But this is what we've come up with. Things could turn on him pretty quick. Looks to be the perfect facilitator to the powerful at times.

Death by Irony

Sec. of State Hillary Clinton will be on Fareed Zakaria GPS on CNN this Sunday. Excerpts of the interview have already been released. This coincides with her week-plus tour of Africa and the release of the two American journalists from Kim Jong Il's Magical Labor Camp and Sweatshop Emporium courtesy, in part, of Bill Clinton.

Zakaria asked HRC about Bill's mission and some of the criticism he and the Obama administration have gotten from the Right. For example, The Washington Post was quick to provide former UN ambassador John Bolton a forum to voice his frothing-at-the-mouth lunacy. HRC fittingly laughed quite hardily at the mere mention by Zakaria of Bolton's opinion.

But what she said next pretty much erased that warm feeling when we're all in on a joke that is a frighteningly militaristic former Bushie. She proceeded to explain why we have to stand up to a country like North Korea that imprisons people on baseless, ethically/legally dubious charges all the while keeping them in areas of the world where human rights inspectors can't reach. Sound familiar? Here is the Bolton mention, then HRC's irony-saturated quote, courtesy of Think Progress:

Clinton: We’ve done this so many times before. We’ve had former presidents do it. We’ve had sitting members of Congress do it. It is something that, you know, it is absolutely not rewarding them. It is not in any way responding to specific demands.

It is a recognition that certain countries that I think are kind of beyond the pale the rule of law hold people and subject them to long prison terms that are absolutely unfair and unwarranted.

She's done this before. I understand that, of course, she has to say this. But where's the accountability on the part of our own place in the annals of human rights abuses, via Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, numerous CIA black sites (which, we are told, are now abolished, but who knows), etc.? How can anyone in the administration say with a straight face that other countries are woefully crossing the line in their treatment of prisoners when we are openly advocating harsh indefinite detention policies and military commissions that undercut our own legal system, supposedly the most fair and just in the world?

This is beyond contempt, not only for the rest of the world and their "banana republic" codes of conduct, but also for the American public. This is what's done in our name, and they bank on us either giving them a pass in the name of "national security" or they hope we're too dumb or distracted to figure out what kind of unlawful, insidious policies we advocate in the U.S.

And what does the mainstream media do? Nothing at all. This, like so many other issues, has been made into a partisan "food fight," in NBC chief political correspondent Chuck Todd's words. The MM refuse to call what we have done torture, but are quick to classify the slightest such activity as brutal and horrid and illegal when it happens somewhere else. They are willingly, openly blowing this. It's their job to point this out. I mean, what if CNN or some such network decided to run with this for the majority of every hour during a normal day? Is that what it would take for us to notice. They'd undoubtedly blow that too, since CNN and the like only know how to throw a Democrat and a Republican out there to yell at each other for 5 minutes, then call it a draw no matter how incoherent torture apologists are.

What is it going to take to stop, or at least slow, this runaway train? Regular U.S. citizens, that's who. We have to voice our grievances and hold them accountable at the ballot box, at the very least. I mean, that's all we've got now that both parties are in on this thanks to Obama's turn. He ran on a new era, but I'm having trouble finding the continual justification of heinous human rights policies as any kind of difference from the pure hell that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney unleashed on the world. And you think the world isn't taking notice of what we're giving a pass to? How long can we seriously denounce others and use our clout as a protector of personal justice when we have set such a putrid example for all to see?

They Set 'Em Up, He Knocks 'Em Down

Say what you will about Robert Gibbs, but he does come up with some good lines now and then. The last sentence is pretty good. Poor WB.

From Political Punch:

“You couldn’t sell this script in Hollywood,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters of the conspiracy theorists, called birthers.
“Tell me if you’ve heard one that’s this totally crazy,” Gibbs said. “A pregnant woman leaves her home to go overseas to have a child -- who there’s not a passport for -- so is in cahoots with someone…to smuggle that child, that previously doesn’t exist on a government roll somewhere back into the country and has the amazing foresight to place birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers? All while this is transpiring in cahoots with those in the border, all so some kid named Barack Obama could run for President 46 and a half years later. You couldn’t sell that to the WB.”

Maybe Liftime would run it as a made-for-TV movie entitled "Mother, Can I Be the President?" (Pink Floyd reference!) I predict a multitude of violin medleys.

And I'm glad the White House press corps is getting to the bottom of this shallow kiddie pool of an issue....

Fairy Tales That Never End

Knee-to-the-groin badass group Hypernova from Iran. (Via Andrew Sullivan)

They're busting to break loose. "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest mother fucker of all? It ain't me!"

Kessler the comedian

Glenn Kessler (with Stella Kim) of The Washington Post plays quite the prank on us readers in his story about the visit to North Korea by Bill Clinton, in which Clinton negotiated a pardon of the two kidnapped journalists of the Al Gore-funded news channel, Current. He gives us the classic "who's your daddy?" slam, 9 years in the making, with the final sentence:

A source familiar with the planning of the visit said the (Obama) administration's consensus choice to travel to Pyongyang was former vice president Al Gore, who co-founded the news channel that employs the journalists. But North Korea rejected Gore as an envoy.

Zing! And ouch. Nine solid years of, largely, the much bigger post-Clinton administration sway in domestic and, more so, international affairs comes this embarrassing jolt back to reality.

I like Al Gore ... I guess. So I'm not just piling on. But this has to hurt the ego.

And this is how the story goes....

A peek behind the curtain: letsgetitdone over at Firedoglake spikes the mainstream media spin on the health-care reform debate.

It's all about fake conflict and conventional wisdom dry-humping on the steps of the Capitol, as if it's all a joke. "Whatever the guy with the most money says ... I don't know." It's, "let's put this new punk on his ass and show him that NOBODY fucks with the power structure around here. You push anymore than this, and we get serious. Back Down Now."

It's highly lazy and unoriginal journalism. Your job is much easier if you follow the safe story, ultimately. Lay low, ruffle a feather or two once in awhile. But when you need a good line, at the right time, you'll fucking get it. Because you played your part. You did what a "good, solid reporter" does. Putting real pressure on anyone important is too much to take on. Brutal.

So now you know, who gets mystified.

5:02 p.m.: Now I know what the Soundgarden-song "Rusty Cage" is about. The public confined in the world of the mainstream media. We have to break that rusty cage, and run (to be cheesy). You put a Phillips Head into my brain! Sounds about right to me.

I told you guys.

But you wouldn't listen, would you?

Study: Redheads' extra pain may cause fear of dentists

By Madison Park
CNN

(CNN) -- Despite two injections of anesthetic, Amy Anderson felt like her dentist was jamming rods into her tooth during a root canal. She writhed in pain as her infected tooth was hollowed with a drill, its nerve amputated, and then sealed.

"I knew this time something was wrong. I could feel my lips," said the Syracuse, New York, resident, who told her dentist the drugs weren't working.

Her doctor kept assuring her she had given her a proper dose and said: "I'm almost done."

"I was hurting so bad, I was hitting myself in the stomach," said Anderson, a redhead. "I almost wanted to hit her."

Studies have indicated that redheads may be more sensitive to pain and may need more anesthetics to numb them.

New research published in this month's Journal of American Dental Association found that painful experiences at the dentist might cause more anxiety for men and women with red hair, who were twice as likely to avoid dental care than people with dark hair.

"Redheads are sensitive to pain," said Dr. Daniel Sessler, an Outcomes Research Department chair at The Cleveland Clinic, in Cleveland, Ohio, who is one of the authors.

"They require more generalized anesthesia, localized anesthesia. The conventional doses fail. They have bad experiences at the dentist and because of the bad experiences, they could avoid dental care."

Read the rest at CNN.

Where are the artists?

Wow, this is a total evisceration of the reaction of black artists, and all artists really, in America six months (and actually, 2 1/2 years of relative fame) under the first black president. Where's the reaction, culture? Don't tell me nothing's changed? If so, that's an even bigger story. If all's the same long after Obama's injection into the American conscience, that has amazing consequences on the power structure in America.

"Dave Chappelle remains in hiding. Tyler Perry's oeuvre is, essentially, one long-running, feel good "yo momma" joke. The kind of monumentally new, staggeringly fresh hip-hop album the Obama Event seems to cry out for has not emerged. The Wire proved that virtually all the best actors in America are African-American. Why is Idris Elba not doing Othello on Broadway right now?"

I'll hand it to Stephen Marche writing for Esquire in this powerful essay.

"... last November, the world called their bluff, and the color of Obama's skin doesn't make a damn bit of difference in the daily business of running the world."

That could take a minute to digest fully. Now chew on this classic, maybe THE classic:

Chappelle's Show
Black Bush
www.comedycentral.com
Buy Chappelle's Show DVDs Black Comedy True Hollywood Story

Waning Influence?

Looks like the NRA is having a tough go of convincing (or scaring) conservative Democrats into voting against Sonia Sotomayor. That seems fairly surprising to me, considering the clout they've traditionally held. Though the AP story only mentions a few names like Max Baucus and Jon Tester, and leaves votes from the likes of Mark Begich and Ben Nelson open to the NRA message. And if we know Ben Nelson, he'll do it. What a diva.