Sunday, May 17, 2009

Last Call

Looks like Nancy Pelosi's best ally to get a full investigation underway? Guess. Who else would stick their foot in it when the Republicans are feeling cocky? RNC head Michael Steele, that's who.
During a Sunday broadcast, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, in the midst of attacking Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of lying, offered his support for an investigation of the Bush administration’s torture program.

Speaking on MSNBC’s Meet the Press, Steele asserted that Pelosi had “stepped in it big time” when she said the CIA had misled Congress in its briefings on torture techniques approved by the Bush administration.

“I think you have heard a lot of Republicans call for that,” he said. “If this is a door that the Democrats and their leaderships, they have the House and Senate and the presidency, and if they want to expose all this, then let’s put it all on the table and take a closer look at it.”

Somewhere, Dick Cheney just shot his TV/monitor, because that's the LAST THING Republicans really want.

On the other hand, wouldn't a weekly political match-up show between Michael Steele and Joe Biden be the greatest thing ever? At any given moment, at least half of Washington would be screaming "NO YOU IDIOT!" at their TVs.

Kind of like how at least half of America does that now screaming at Washington.

Mitch Dances The Dance Of Brotherly Love

Steve Benen points out that my senior Senator Mitch McConnell likes to do the Mamushka.
Remember when Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) believed filibustering a president's judicial nominee was just about the worst thing a senator could do? When McConnell was prepared to change the rules, execute the "nuclear option," and declare judicial filibusters unconstitutional?

Well, never mind that now.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday that he would not rule out employing a filibuster to block Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee despite having vehemently opposed the use of the parliamentary procedure over judicial appointments four years ago.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, the Kentucky Republican said that, per the rules of the Senate, "all things are possible" when it came to the vote on Obama's choice for the Court. When reminded that he threatened to resort to the "nuclear option" when Democrats were threatening to filibuster George W. Bush's Court appointments, McConnell largely embraced his 180 degree turn in position.

"The Senate rejected my advice," he reminded host Chris Wallace. "And the Senate is a place that frequently operates on precedent. So I think the Senate deliberately decided not to take a position one way or the other."

It was just four years ago this week that McConnell had a very different perspective.

And of course, nobody around here will call him on it. Certainly no one in Washington will.

But that's Mitch for you. We had our chance to get rid of him last year. As thy sow, so shall thy reap.

In Which Zandar Answers Your Burning Questions

As the President wades through the abortion debate at Notre Dame this afternoon, Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters dissects this Josh Gerstein piece at Politico and comes up with this question:
So, is this an honest assessment by Gerstein of growing discontent amongst liberals towards the new President, or a warning to Obama to name a liberal replacement to Souter or risk losing the support of his base?
The answer simply enough is "Both."

When Obama plays the Odubya card, he simply reminds the netroots that in politics, you're either a useful idiot, or just an idiot. As I've said before, Obama's "three steps forward, three steps back" political philosophy means in the end, nothing actually changes.

Hold That Tiger

Some good news in the world today, the bloody quarter-century conflict between the government of Sri Lanka and the rebel Tamil Tigers has for now come to an end as the Tigers have surrendered.
The Tamil Tigers conceded defeat in Sri Lanka's 25-year civil war on Sunday, after launching waves of suicide attacks to repel a final assault by troops determined to annihilate them.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa had declared victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) the day before, even as combat raged in the island's northeast and the military said it was freeing the last of thousands of trapped civilians.

By midday Sunday, the military said troops had freed all the civilians being held by the LTTE inside an area that was less than a single square km (0.5 sq mile). A total of 72,000 had fled since Thursday, it said.

LTTE founder-leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran's fate remained a mystery, although military sources said a body believed to be his was recovered and its identity was being confirmed.

The LTTE, founded on a culture of suicide before surrender, had shown no sign of giving up. Suicide fighters blew themselves up on the frontline on Sunday morning, and more than 70 were killed trying to flee overnight, the military said.

But by afternoon the military said fighting had slowed, and the pro-rebel web site www.TamilNet.com released a statement from the LTTE's head of international relations saying: "This battle has reached its bitter end."

"We remain with one last choice -- to remove the last weak excuse of the enemy for killing our people. We have decided to silence our guns," Selvarajah Pathmanathan's statement said.

Now, as any American can tell you, comes the hard part of living in the peacetime. Obama and the US have a major opportunity to help Sri Lanka recover from this and to assure that war does not break out again in the country, but first there must be a reckoning of twenty five years of war crimes comitted by both sides.

Were that other countries were held to that standard.

And You Shall Know My Name Is The Rumsfeld

Robert Draper is probably best known for the book Dead Certain, an authorized bio of Dubya's '99 campaign and first term. Draper's book left many unanswered questions about the most important 18 months of the Bush's first term, the period from September 11, 2001 to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Today on GQ's web site, Draper gets around to finally dropping that bombshell on the run-up to our war in Iraq.
on the morning of Thursday, April 10, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon prepared a top-secret briefing for George W. Bush. This document, known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update, was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House. The briefing’s cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days’ war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death.” This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. On March 31, a U.S. tank roared through the desert beneath a quote from Ephesians: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” On April 7, Saddam Hussein struck a dictatorial pose, under this passage from the First Epistle of Peter: “It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.”

These cover sheets were the brainchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a director for intelligence serving both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense. In the days before the Iraq war, Shaffer’s staff had created humorous covers in an attempt to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle. Then, as the body counting began, Shaffer, a Christian, deemed the biblical passages more suitable. Several others in the Pentagon disagreed. At least one Muslim analyst in the building had been greatly offended; others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation, the fallout—as one Pentagon staffer would later say—“would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.”

But the Pentagon’s top officials were apparently unconcerned about the effect such a disclosure might have on the conduct of the war or on Bush’s public standing. When colleagues complained to Shaffer that including a religious message with an intelligence briefing seemed inappropriate, Shaffer politely informed them that the practice would continue, because “my seniors”—JCS chairman Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the commander in chief himself—appreciated the cover pages.

But one government official was disturbed enough by these biblically seasoned sheets to hold on to copies, which I obtained recently while debriefing the past eight years with those who lived them inside the West Wing and the Pentagon. Over the past several months, the battle to define the Bush years has begun taking shape: As President Obama has rolled back his predecessor’s foreign and economic policies, Dick Cheney, Ari Fleischer, and former speechwriters Michael Gerson and Marc Thiessen have all taken to the airwaves or op-ed pages to cast the Bush years in a softer light. My conversations with more than a dozen Bush loyalists, including several former cabinet-level officials and senior military commanders, have revealed another element of this legacy-building moment: intense feelings of ill will toward Donald Rumsfeld. Though few of these individuals would speak for the record (knowing that their former boss, George W. Bush, would not approve of it), they believe that Rumsfeld’s actions epitomized the very traits—arrogance, stubbornness, obliviousness, ineptitude—that critics say drove the Bush presidency off the rails.

It gets worse from there, the article painting a picture of a President convinced by everyone around him (and flat-out manipulated by Rumsfeld and Cheney) that he was literally doing God's work by going into Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, and trying to liberate the country from the man who tried to kill Poppy Bush.

We most certainly need a full accounting of all the actions of these people. It's not going to magically go away. We're still in Iraq, and we're still in Afghanistan because we got into Iraq instead of finishing the job. These people are inhuman monsters, committing atrocities that must see the light of day if America is ever to be able to move on.

But that doesn't matter of course because Nancy Pelosi doesn't like the CIA.

Frank Rich has much more on this in his NY Times column today. Bush was cynically manipulated by Rummy and Cheney, period...but Dubya must he held accountable for his decisions.

You should be sickened. I know I am. I know that America's soul will never be at peace until this is fixed. Look at these cover sheets and tell me God wanted us to go into Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands for the egos of people in Washington. Go ahead.

Last Call

The question of what Bush, Cheney, Condi, Colin, Rummy, Ashcroft, and Gonzo knew about us torturing people is completely irrelevant to the Village, the Republican Party and apparently President Obama.

All that matters is that Nancy Pelosi has to burn for it because the Village decrees that saying the CIA mislead you is completely and totally worse than authorizing waterboarding dozens and dozens of times.

ITEISATDF: In The End, It Somehow Always The Democrat's Fault (tm). After all, in the battle between Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh on one side and Nancy Pelosi on the other, it's Pelosi who has the credibility problem according to our Liberal Media.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Only Huntsman Could Go To China

Looking at some more info on the Gov. Jon Huntsman story this morning, several news sources are reporting that the Utah Republican will be Obama's ambassador to China. As Steve Benen notes, this is a triple word score on Barack's Scrabble board:
David Plouffe, who managed the Obama campaign, conceded recently that he saw Huntsman as one of the few Republicans on presidential caliber, and hinted that, for Democrats' sake, he hoped Huntsman doesn't run in 2012.

Now, that probably won't be an issue.

By tapping Huntsman for the job, Obama gets a Mandarin-speaking official -- something Chinese leaders will no doubt appreciate -- while also removing a credible re-election challenger. The president also boosts his bipartisan cred by adding another high-profile Republican to his administration.

It's not that Huntsman would have gotten through the 2012 primaries anyway. He's definitely in the Mitt Romney/Country Club Moderate mold and just not enough of a far right nutbar for the likes of Malkinvania. Being able to speak fluent Mandarin and having an adoptive Chinese daughter would have just gotten him attacked in a brutally personal fashion by his own party for "being too close to Red China."

By taking Obama's out, Huntsman shows he's smart enough to be one of those few people who doesn't want to be President in 2012, but 2016 is another story.

I don't see this blowing up in Obama's face like Judd Gregg did, either. For a Republican, Huntsman is almost frighteningly reasonable.

StupidiNews, Weekend Edition

Friday, May 15, 2009

Last Call


Steve King, with a little help from FOX News, calls for Pelosi to step down as Speaker.

Naturally the Very Serious Village Agenda has now been set for the Sunday Shows, which will now be all about "Should Nancy Pelosi resign as Speaker because NANCY IS A LIAR" rather than "Should Congress investigate how we f'ckin tortured people to build a fake case for war in Iraq?" Gosh, I know which one of those questions I want answered.

But of course, the Village still answers to idiots like Steve King.

Where There's Smoke, There's Carbon Emissions

Looks like the only way to get cap-and-trade legislation passed is to make major concessions to the energy and the auto industry (the one making billions in profits that can certainly afford to be magnanimous and the other getting billions in free gubment cash, who should basically consider it the price of assistance.) Both of these industries should really shut it and accept these new regs wholesale, but wouldn't you know it, they still have the best lobbyists in town.
Details of the compromise are still emerging, but already the chief sponsors of the measure — Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) — have been forced to lower carbon-reduction targets, cut renewable fuel standards and dole out billions of dollars in benefits to the nation’s largest polluting industries. Many environmentalists say the compromise comes at the too-high cost of undermining the bill’s very purpose, which is to slash emissions dramatically enough to prevent a warming planet from heating further. Some are asking Democrats either to bolster the environmental protections or to scrap the proposal altogether.

“We are not prepared to ‘give away the farm’ just so that we can say that we helped to get legislation passed,” Janet Keating, executive director of the West Virginia-based Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, said in a statement Friday. “There are some costs that are too high to pay when it comes to the environment, clean air and clean water. We urge Congress to either fix the Waxman-Markey bill or dump it and start over.”

The saga highlights the thorny congressional climate change debate, where partisan politics takes a backseat to regional interests, and the influence of the energy lobby is king. Indeed, the concessions from Waxman and Markey to this point have been made to satisfy Democrats representing regions heavy with coal, oil and automaker interests.

The resulting dynamic is one of multi-layered tension that pits industry against environmentalists, regional interests against national and global interests, and congressional lawmakers against emission reforms that might help the planet, but could also cost jobs in their districts.

“I’m just trying to take care of the principal concerns that would impact my region, in particular my district,” Rep. Charles Gonzales, a Houston-based Democrat who’s pushing for more benefits for oil refineries in the House bill, told Politico Thursday.

In the eyes of many environmentalists, that brand of regional protectionism might yield short-term gains for some areas of the country, but will come at the cost of a deteriorating globe. They’re asking what good is it to protect polluters in a world where you can’t drink the water or breath the air, and the oceans are swallowing the coasts?

Which is of course, The Whole Point.

And people wonder why nothing gets done in this country. Even when a party has 60 Senators, a huge majority in the House, and a President...the lobbyists still run the freakin country.

Eye Of The Storm



Howard Davidowitz scares the crap out of you.

Davidowitz, who is nothing if not opinionated (and colorful), paints a very grim picture: "The worst is yet to come with consumers and banks," he says. "This country is going into a 10-year decline. Living standards will never be the same."

This outlook is based on the following main points:

  • With the unemployment rate rising into double digits - and that's not counting the millions of "underemployed" Americans - consumers are hitting the breaks, which is having a huge impact, given consumer spending accounts for about 70% of economic activity.
  • Rising unemployment and the $8 trillion negative wealth effect of housing mean more Americans will default on not just mortgages but student loans and auto loans and credit card debt.
  • More consumer loan defaults will hit banks, which are also threatened by what Davidowitz calls a "depression" in commercial real estate, noting the recent bankruptcy of General Growth Properties and distressed sales by Developers Diversified and other REITs.

As for all the hullabaloo about the stress tests, he says they were a sham and part of a "con game to get private money to finance these institutions because [Treasury] can't get more money from Congress. It's the ‘greater fool' theory."

"We're now in Barack Obama's world where money goes into the most inefficient parts of the economy and we're bailing everyone out," says Daviowitz, who opposes bailouts for financials and automakers alike. "The bailout money is in the sewer and gone."

Just getting warmed up, folks.

What Atrios Said

S'Truth.
The ease Republicans have in shifting the conversation from "torture is illegal" to "NANCY KNEW," as if the latter, even if true, in any way changed the former. They kick the soccer ball, and the press follows. After all these years I'm not entirely sure why that is, but there you are. And, you know, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has precisely zero power but his every pronouncement is treated as Incredibly Important News. Any journalists want to explain why?
And yet, the same media players who think the job of political reporting means "America has an absolute right to know what every Republican thinks about every little thing" are the same ones who can't figure out why their circulation and ratings have fallen precipitously.

When you're more interested in pretending 21% of America equals the vast majority of media consumers, don't be surprised when the other 79% ignores you.

[UPDATE] What Josh Marshall said, too.
Here's where we are. There are various documents and recollections from around through the news ether. Pelosi's accusers are saying she knew more than she admits. She says that many of these claims are false and the documents perhaps erroneous, and that she's been consistent and true to her opposition to torture. And then she says, and I think there should be a broad-ranging Truth Commission to investigate what happened, who's telling the truth and who isn't. You can see it here at about 3:45 in.

That says it all. She wants it all investigated. The whole point of this storm about Pelosi is that her critics want her to be embarrassed and stop supporting a Truth Commission or any sort of examination of what happened. But she's not. She still says there should be an investigation. Her critics still want the book closed. That says it all. She'll have to stand or fall with the results of an actual investigation. Her opponents on this are simply risible hypocrites.

It doesn't matter if anyone actually tortured anybody and the Speaker of the House is calling for a massive investigation to prove she is right cause NANCY IS A LIAR, see?

There doesn't need to be an investigation. We can take it as fact that NANCY IS A LIAR simply because the Republicans say she is...and that's good enough for our liberal media. As far as they are concerned, the case is closed, baby.

It seems my clever plan for the Republicans to immolate themselves in the truth has fallen prey to the fact that the media wants nothing to do with immolating Republicans.

The Other Shoe Drops On Obamacare

Me, four days ago:
Obama's health care announcement that several health care industry groups are signing on to pledge to reduce health care costs by $2 trillion over 10 years has garnered a lot of praise, but many people besides myself are wondering what the other shoe dropping is.
Health care industry, today:
Health care leaders who attended the meeting have a different interpretation. They say they agreed to slow health spending in a more gradual way and did not pledge specific year-by-year cuts.

“There’s been a lot of misunderstanding that has caused a lot of consternation among our members,” said Richard J. Umbdenstock, the president of the American Hospital Association. “I’ve spent the better part of the last three days trying to deal with it.”

Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said “the president misspoke” on Monday and again on Wednesday when he described the industry’s commitment in similar terms. After providing that account, Ms. DeParle called back about an hour later on Thursday and said: “I don’t think the president misspoke. His remarks correctly and accurately described the industry’s commitment.”

The Washington office of the American Hospital Association sent a bulletin to its state and local affiliates to “clarify several points” about the White House meeting.

In the bulletin, Richard J. Pollack, the executive vice president of the hospital association, said: “The A.H.A. did not commit to support the ‘Obama health plan’ or budget. No such reform plan exists at this time.”

Moreover, Mr. Pollack wrote, “The groups did not support reducing the rate of health spending by 1.5 percentage points annually.”
Hello, shoe! Meet Obama's face and the asses of 50 million Americans with no health care! For once, AmSpec has a point: if you wanted to kill Obamacare, making sure the health care industry and the White House no longer trust each other is a great way to scuttle the plan.

Nobody could have predicted, etcetera. Bonus points for the Wingers now saying Obama is a dirty, filthy liar.

Choosing Pro-Life

A new Gallup poll shows that for the first time (and with an impressive nine point margin) more Americans say they are pro-life than pro-choice.

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

qgpmcs1jxuwo2l6achm_cg

The new results, obtained from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.

The May 2009 survey documents comparable changes in public views about the legality of abortion. In answer to a question providing three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal, about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion.

The article goes on to note that the major change from this year to last year is the number of Republicans who call themselves pro-life, that number is up significantly. The number of Democrats and Independents calling themselves pro-life is about the same.

Even if you assume that the number of Republicans has fallen (and Independents have grown) that still means the total population has made a major shift towards the abolition of abortion, despite making a major shift away from the Republican Party.

Certainly that's possible. Those still calling themselves Republicans are much more likely to be pro-life, but amazingly enough Barack Obama's election didn't change abortion views among Democrats or Independents.

If Gallup asked enough Republicans to get 1/3 of the poll sample, when 1/3 of the population isn't Republican (it's closer to 20% these days) that could be skewing the numbers somewhat.

Still, I don't think that accounts for the entire shift. I think America is growing more pro-life, frankly.

Both parties should take notice.

[UPDATE] Steve Benen doesn't buy it. He has a point to an extent, pro-choice forces have gotten complacent. It could be an outlier.

Cause And Defect

Malkinvania on Arlen Specter's EFCA compromise efforts:
Card check = massively boosting union rolls = massively boosting Democrat voter rolls = permanent GOP minority.

What a way for Arlen Specter to perpetrate his final betrayal.

Which is funny, because if we're going to be completely and cynically political about stuff like this, you guys had your chance in 2007 with Bush's guest worker program, but you vowed you would never, ever allow it to happen and it was defeated. Coulda been a lot more Hispanic voters for the GOP, you know.

I guess they'll want to vote Democrat then. Might counteract all the pissed off autoworkers out of job this year who might not be so friendly to the Dems in 2010.

Related Posts with Thumbnails