Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Former Powell aide Bush was ‘Sarah Palin-like’ in his knowledge of foreign policy



















Former Powell aide Bush was ‘Sarah Palin-like’ in his knowledge of foreign policy
In an interview with Vanity Fair for its upcoming issue on the Bush White House, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, ripped President Bush, saying that after the 2000 election, Bush’s knowledge of foreign affairs was as poor as that of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R):

We had this confluence of characters—and I use that term very carefully—that included people like Powell, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and so forth, which allowed one perception to be “the dream team.” It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin–like president—because, let’s face it, that’s what he was—was going to be protected by this national- security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire.

Monday, December 29, 2008

Congradulations to Cokie Roberts


































It's official: Readers pick Congratulations to Cokie Roberts' "foreign, exotic" Hawaii comments as Most Inane
In the end, it wasn't close. By an overwhelming margin, criticism by Cokie Roberts, NPR contributing senior news analyst and ABC political commentator, of then-Sen. Barack Obama for choosing Hawaii, the state of his birth, to take his August family vacation was the most popular entry in Media Matters for America's poll for Most Inane Punditry of the 2008 presidential campaign. Readers chose Roberts' comments -- which included her characterizing Hawaii, where Obama vacations regularly, as "foreign, exotic" -- in greater numbers than her two closest competitors combined. Roberts stated: "I know his grandmother lives in Hawaii and I know Hawaii is a state, but it has the look of him going off to some sort of foreign, exotic place," adding, "He should be in Myrtle Beach, and, you know, if he's going to take a vacation at this time."

Roberts repeated her criticism of Obama's vacation destination during the August 11 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition, asserting that Obama's choice of Hawaii for his vacation "makes him seem a little bit more exotic." She also characterized Hawaii as "a somewhat odd place to be doing it," despite acknowledging, "I know that he is from Hawaii, he grew up there, his grandmother lives there."

Media Matters readers were not alone in objecting to Roberts' remarks. Responding to Roberts' comments, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) reportedly said: "She's a bit of a fool that's the only thing you can say. ... Don't forget Cokie Roberts and the whole Washington crowd live in a kind of an incestuous relationship to one another, they talk to one another, they see one another, they know nothing about ordinary people." On August 11, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) released a statement in response to Roberts' comments, stating in part: "Saying our 50th state is somehow 'foreign,' does a great disservice to the hard working, patriotic Americans who call Hawaii home.

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Karl Rove Destroyed My Life




















Karl Rove Destroyed My Life By Paul Alexander, The Daily Beast
Last week, Al Gore sent an email message urging supporters to give money to Don Siegelman's legal defense fund. Gore is the latest in a string of high profile supporters to suggest Siegelman, the former Governor of Alabama, was the victim of a Republican plot when he was found guilty of bribery, conspiracy and fraud in 2006, and sentenced to seven years in prison.

Now, in the waning days of the Bush administration, Siegelman is trying to win back his freedom -- not to mention his good name -- in a courtroom in Atlanta. Earlier this year, an appeals court granted his release after he had served nine months, saying the Governor's appeal had raised "substantial questions" about the case against him. Siegelman's cause was helped by a bipartisan group of 54 former state attorneys general from across the country who filed a federal appeals brief supporting his bid to overturn the conviction. Republican insiders have also come forward to say Siegelman was unfairly targeted by Rove and his circle.

Making it in prison depends on one's level of tolerance. I'm used to mopping in my wife's kitchen. It was just a bigger floor.

Siegelman's appeal was heard earlier this month and the verdict will determine whether he returns to prison to finish out his sentence, or goes free.

How did a former governor -- and a rising star in the Democratic Party -- end up in a situation like this?

On June 29, 2006, Siegelman and Richard Scrushy, the CEO of HealthSouth, a chain of medical rehabilitation services with facilities both in the United States and abroad, were found guilty by a jury in Montgomery, Alabama, of federal bribery charges. A year later, Judge Mark Fuller, who had clear conflicts of interest in the case -- a company in which he holds a major stake received a $175 million government contract at one point during the legal proceedings -- sentenced Scrushy to almost seven years in prison. Siegelman got 88 months.

There was one central transaction that sent these men to prison for all this time. Not long after Siegelman had been elected governor in 1998, he convinced Scrushy to contribute $500,000 to a political action committee, which was supporting the establishment of a lottery in Alabama to pay for higher education. At the same time, he talked Scrushy into serving on a state hospital regulatory board on which he had already served three times -- appointed by both Democrats and Republicans -- and from which he had recently resigned. To US attorney Leura Canary, the wife of William "Bill" Canary, the close friend and former business associate of Karl Rove, the act constituted bribery, for which she charged the two men. Among the many other charges, dismissed by the jury, this was the one that stuck.

QUESTION: First, was the act for which you and Richard Scrushy convicted actually a crime?

SIEGELMAN: Fifty-four state attorneys general filed a friend of the court brief stating that it has never been a crime in America for a politician or a public official to appoint a contributor to anything, whether it's ambassador or cabinet member or a member of a board or an agency. The only thing that is a crime is if you swap a position for money. And there has got to be an express agreement that's provable. Otherwise, the United States Supreme Court says it's an infringement on a person's first amendment right to freely associate and make contributions.

QUESTION: The case with you and Scrushy seems especially weak.

SIEGELMAN: Scrushy had just recently resigned from the board and the person I had defeated, Job James, had appointed one of Scrushy's vice presidents to the position. When I got elected I called Scrushy and said, "I want you to serve in my administration like you did in three previous administration." And he said, "Oh, Governor, do I have to? I just resigned from that board. Can't I get you the name of somebody?" I said, "Nope, it's either you or nobody." So he went onto the board reluctantly. And this poor guy is still in prison today.

QUESTION: Many observers believe he is because he would not cooperate with the prosecution to convict you.

SIEGELMAN: In an effort to get me, the prosecution went to Scrushy before they indicted him and said, "Just tell us Siegelman extorted the money; just tell us he twisted your arm." He said, "I can't do that because that's not what happened." They went to him after he was indicted and said, "Okay, we will give you another chance. Tell us Siegelman twisted your arm and tried to extort money." He said, "I can't say that because that's not what happened." During the trial, he was sitting at the defense table, and they came and got him again and gave him a third chance to throw me under the bus by lying for the prosecution and he wouldn't do it. This is not the way the justice system in this country is supposed to work.

QUESTION: Describe what happened to you after you were sentenced.

SIEGELMAN: Scrushy and I were taken from the courtroom less than thirty seconds after the gavel came down in handcuffs, shackles, and chains around our waist and ankles. We were put in the back of a police car and driven to Atlanta where we were taken to a maximum-security prison and put in solitary confinement. Then they moved me around the country from prison to prison until I ended up in the swamps of Louisiana......

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Merry War on Christmas The Religious Right Isn't Going Anywhere

















Merry War on Christmas The Religious Right Isn't Going Anywhere By Frederick Clarkson
The Defining Moment of the Culture Wars

"My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what," Pat Buchanan declared in his famously inflammatory speech at the 1992 GOP national convention. "It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself."

He denounced the "radical feminism" of Bill and Hillary Clinton, stating that their "agenda would impose on America -- abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat -- that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country."

If this sounds familiar, it is because little has changed since these words were shouted to the world on prime-time television.

Buchanan's speech epitomizes the Religious Right's general view of the "culture war" -- as a "religious war" that manifests itself on many "cultural" fronts, most urgently abortion, homosexuality (especially, now, marriage equality), education privatization and curriculum content of the public schools.

For the aggressors in this largely one-sided war -- war is not merely a metaphor. It is far more profound and animating idea, stemming from conflicts of "world view," usually described as a "Biblical World View" against everything else. That is why we have seen decades of violence against abortion providers and against LGBT people, and almost nothing from other sides who are merely exercising their civil rights to believe differently or to seek greater equality under the law.

The more significant battles of this war will be in the states where the Religious Right's political strength is now greater than in the federal government.

Snapshots from the Culture War in the States

Here are a few snapshots from real-life politics in the states in 2008 and what they portend for the future:

* Anti-marriage-equality initiatives prevailed in Arizona, Florida and California in 2008. Fueled with funding from politically animated Mormons, Catholics and Protestant evangelicals at the urging of religious leaders, the initiatives passed, and for the first time in American history, rolled back a court-ordered civil rights advance.
* While Rhode Island and New York recognize the validity of same-sex marriages from other states, the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act allows states to refuse to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court has so far declined to hear constitutional challenges to DOMA. So far, 30 states have passed anti-marriage-equality initiatives; and 10 states passed statutory DOMAs.
* New York and New Jersey: The conservative religious coalition that passed the stunning reversal on marriage equality in California plans to take the battle to these eastern states.
* Constitutional Convention initiative in Connecticut: Every 20 years, the state is required to have an initiative asking the voters if it is time for a state constitutional convention. Following the state's Supreme Court legalization of same-sex marriage, the Religious Right and the Catholic Church seized on the initiative, purchasing a large, last-minute TV ad campaign. While this effort was unsuccessful, we can expect further battles in Connecticut.
* Failed efforts to get other anti-abortion or anti-gay initiatives on the ballot: Montana, Arkansas and Massachusetts. Even in losing, the Religious Right has considerable capacity to keep its issues on the front burner.
* Texas: The elected State Board of Education appointed three prominent "intelligent design" advocates to a six-member science-review panel. The chairman of the SBOE wrote in an op-ed, "Science education has become a culture war issue" and that the claims of scientists "will be challenged by creationists."
* Alabama: The State Board of Education, under pressure from the Religious Right, recently approved a controversial Bible study curriculum as an elective.
* Louisiana: In 2008, the legislature approved the use of "supplemental" materials in public schools, that appears to open a backdoor to the use of creationism and intelligent design materials banned from science curricula by the U.S. Supreme Court.
* Kansas: Control over the elected State Board of Education has flipped back and forth between the Religious Right and moderate Democrats and Republicans since the late 1990s. In 2010, five seats are expected to be contested.
* Iowa: Shortly after the 2008 presidential election, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Religious Right Roman Catholic, headlined a high-dollar fundraiser for the Iowa Family Policy Center, the state political affiliate of Focus on the Family. The event was seen as a foreshadowing of the 2012 Iowa presidential caucuses.
* Alaska: Republican Gov. Sarah Palin, who was vetted by the Religious Right-dominated Council for National Policy and forced onto the Republican Party presidential ticket, has emerged as a party leader along with such Religious Right figures as Jindal, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (currently a Fox News program host and a former presidential candidate) and, arguably, Mitt Romney (a Mormon who has moved toward the Religious Right since serving as governor of Massachusetts).

These snapshots suggest not only that the Religious Right remains strong in the Republican Party, but that it intends and is capable of, waging and winning theocratic battles against LGBT and women's civil and human rights, as well as disrupting secular public education. The religious war Buchanan described has shown that it can transcend the wins and losses of any given election season. The only way the culture war could be over, or nearly over, is if one or another side is clearly winning or losing, its capacity to wage the war has been significantly enhanced or degraded, or it is about to call a truce or to surrender. None of these things is happening.

Innovations

At a national meeting of the American Catholic bishops held shortly after the election, many declared there was no acceptable compromise on abortion and denounced the pro-choice views of President-elect Barack Obama. Some condemned Catholics who had argued it was morally acceptable to back Obama because he pledged to reduce abortion rates.

Focus on the Family has rolled out a new "Truth Project," a religious and ideological indoctrination program that is currently touring the country targeting young people of "college age." In addition to the usual fare of family issues and sexuality, the project aggressively promotes intelligent design. Analysis of current polling shows a slight trend toward tolerance among young, white evangelicals concerning some of the issues of the culture wars. While many pundits take that as a sure sign of change to come, the Religious Right is looking at the same data. And Focus on the Family and the millennially militant organization The Call, among many others, intend to aggressively contend for that demographic.

Monday, December 22, 2008

They Lied About Iraq in 2003, and They're Still Lying Now


































They Lied About Iraq in 2003, and They're Still Lying Now by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
Triumphalists are getting off on Iraq again, intoning hallelujah songs as they did after staging the fall of Saddam's statue then again and again, sweet lullabies to send us into blissful sleep and wake to a new dawn. The composers and orchestrators - Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Straw, Hoon and Rice - still believe history is on their side.

Bush visited his troops at Camp Victory in Iraq this month and said: "Iraq had a record of supporting terror, of developing and using weapons of mass destruction, was routinely firing at American military personnel, systematically violating UN resolutions ... Iraqis, once afraid to leave their homes are going back to school and shopping in malls ... American troops are returning home because of success." Only one shoe and one without a sharp stiletto was hurled at him by Muntadar al-Zaidi, an Iraqi who begged to differ.

Gordon Brown, also in Iraq, spun his own fairy tale of Baghdad, where everyone is living happily ever after and British soldiers come home proud heroes. The reality is that some of our soldiers are broken - physically and mentally - fighting this illegal and unpopular war and that too many did terrible things in the land of endless tears. General Sir Mike Jackson now blames the Americans for their "appalling" decisions. And yet he too insists the campaign was a success.

Even the choral backers of Bush and Blair, once oh-so-influential, sound tinny now, out of tune. In a new book, The Liberal Defence Of Murder, Richard Seymour names many usually enlightened individuals who cheered on the disgraceful crusade and have now gone silent. Others who supported the adventure have escaped through passages of ingenious exculpation. Most Tories, for example, now say they were hypnotised by the Government's false dossiers.

Really? Even hard-of-hearing Mrs Kirkpatrick down the road - she's 79 - understood that we were being deceived. The UN weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Scott Ritter both told us there were no WMDs. Ken Clarke said this weekend: "I opposed the Iraq war. I'm not sure whether anybody believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to anybody. Most American spies didn't believe that, most British spies didn't believe that and most of the Foreign Office didn't believe that".

Nor did the Opposition but it still backed Blair because Conservatives love wars and one against a swarthy potentate was irresistible.

So to Iraqis, the beneficiaries of our noble "sacrifices". This week Nahla Hussein, a left-wing, feminist Kurdish Iraqi, was shot and beheaded for her campaigning zeal. Fifty-seven Iraqis were blown up in Kirkuk. Christians in Mosul are being savagely persecuted and sharia law has replaced the 1959 codified entitlements given to women in family disputes. Women in Iraq have fewer rights today than under Saddam. Yes, there is some normality in parts but tensions between Shias and Sunnis are explosive. When troops are withdrawn next year, expect more bloodshed. The resources of Iraq, meanwhile, are being plundered.

For these blessings, one million Iraqis had to die and their children still suffer from illnesses caused by our weapons and our war. Five million Iraqis are displaced and, of these, the US took in 1,700. It is easier for an Iraqi cat or dog to gain entry to the land of the free. Try Baghdad Pups, which offers (for a hefty fee) to get the adopted pets of US soldiers into America. In 2007, 39,000 Iraqis sought refuge in the EU countries and we took in 300. Sweden, which has no responsibility for the havoc, gave refuge to 18,000.

I have been talking to exiled Iraqis in London. One young man has a child whose mother killed herself after giving birth during the war. He both loves and hates this country, as did Bilal Abdullah, the NHS doctor convicted for dreadful plans to blow up people in the UK. A beautiful Iraqi woman told me her nephew gave plastic flowers to our soldiers when first they went into Basra. Last year, they shot him dead, mistaking him for an enemy.

On Friday, I met an Iraqi artist, Yousif Nasser, whose studio has become a hub for other exiles, artists, musicians and the mentally ill seeking art therapy. A gentle, melancholic man, he showed me his series titled "Black Rain", enormous works depicting the violence in Iraq: "There are no bodies, only pieces, bits, of a little bit of this and that. People don't buy my pictures - they are too dark. How can I tell you what has happened to my country? I have no words, only these images."

I have words, too weak and inadequate to carry the rage felt by millions at the renewed arrogance of the villains who first devastated Iraq and now garland themselves. Lies, lies and now delusion. There is no glory to be salvaged in this desert.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Cheney Lays More Pardon-Pipe






































Cheney Lays More Pardon-Pipe
by David Latt
The current administration faces a potential tsunami of lawsuits and indictments once it leaves office. For the past 8 years the Bush administration has used claims of Executive Privilege and the power of intimidation to fend off Congressional and prosecutorial investigations, but once out of office their ability to protect themselves will be greatly diminished.

In a series of legacy interviews, soon to be ex-V.P. Dick Cheney argues that history will regard the actions of the Bush administration positively. In an interview with The Washington Times, he turns to the example of Gerald Ford who was vilified for pardoning ex-President Richard Nixon before any zealous prosecutor could pursue him for Watergate-related crimes:

President Ford made a decision that was extraordinarily unpopular at the time when he pardoned former President Nixon. He suffered -- he dropped 30 points in the polls in one week as I recall.


By the time of his passing a couple of years ago, opinion had totally turned on that. In fact, most people by then, even many who had been very critical 30 years before, were in agreement that in fact it was a good decision, it was the right thing to do from the standpoint of the country. ...

I'm personally persuaded that this president and this administration will look very good 20 or 30 years down the road in light of what we've been able to accomplish with respect to the global war on terror.

In the context of the interview, the focus on "the global war on terror" gives Cheney the opportunity to talk about abuse of prisoners and "enhanced interrogation techniques". Denying that either is torture, he goes on to argue that it was morally imperative for he and others to use what some have called "torture" in the pursuit of national security:

Was it torture? I don't believe it was torture. We spent a great deal of time and effort getting legal advice, legal opinion out of the office of legal counsel, which is where you go for those kinds of opinions, from the Department of Justice, as to what the red lines were out there, in terms of, this you can do, this you can't do. ...


You come to the question of morality and ethics. In my mind the foremost obligation we had from a moral or an ethical standpoint was to the oath of office we took when we were sworn in, on Jan. 20 of 2001, to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. And that's what we've done.

I think it would have been unethical or immoral for us not to do everything we could in order to protect the nation against further attacks like what happened on 9/11. We made the judgment -- the president and I and others -- that wasn't going to happen again on our watch. And I feel very good about what we did, I think it was the right thing to do. If I was faced with those circumstances again I'd do exactly the same thing.

And why is the vice president doing all the talking about the administration's record?

In terms of whether or not [I was] the most powerful and influential [vice president], I'll let somebody else make those judgments. I think, um, I do believe that the vice presidency has been a consequential office, if I can put it in those terms, in this administration. But that's first and foremost because that's what the president wanted.


He's the one who asked me to take the job, he's also the one who decided during the course of the process eight years ago that he wanted somebody who would be another member of the team, who had a certain set of experiences and so forth, who could be an active participant in the process.

If you're a prosecutor pursuing charges against members of the Bush administration for authorizing torture, then you look for a smoking gun that connects individuals with specific activities. Cheney is now on record as one of the officials who authorized the CIA to use waterboarding, among other enhanced interrogation techniques. So you have his own words to use against him.

But in this latest interview Cheney has added a twist to the argument. While seeming to be deferential to his boss, saying "that's what the president wanted," he's actually laying blame clearly at George W. Bush's feet. Whatever he, Cheney, did during the course of 8 years, he did because his president told him to do it. Cheney has laid the blame-pipe right to the door of the Bush White House.

In effect, Dick Cheney is letting George W. Bush know that if there are prosecutions, they won't stop with the VP, they'll lead all the way to the soon to be ex-president. So, in the best traditions of the Republican Party, as exemplified by Gerald Ford and his own father, George W.H. Bush, Bush better pardon all those members of the administration who could be prosecutorial targets, because if you don't, you're only opening the door for them to come after you.

Vice President Cheney has laid his cards on the table and he's a hard-nosed competitor. The only thing that would trump his play would be if President Bush does use his pardon power, but not to pardon Dick Cheney but George W. Bush. Then the game's over and Dick Cheney and the others will be left to deal with whatever history has in store for them.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Why it's legitimate to investigate the Bush lawyers

































































Why it's legitimate to investigate the Bush lawyers
Lawyers are often asked to offer their views on complicated questions with significant real-world consequences, and the idea that offering the wrong answer could implicate an attorney in criminal wrongdoing is a frightening prospect to many in the profession. It is not surprising, therefore, that lawyers are reluctant to condemn fellow lawyers on the basis of the advice that they give.

But attorneys are hardly the only ones who must make difficult decisions in times of war. American soldiers, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, are duty-bound to obey only lawful orders. Indeed, since the Nuremberg trials, it has been a fundamental precept of international law that soldiers must disobey orders to commit war crimes. If soldiers are supposed to differentiate between lawful and unlawful orders, why should lawyers, who are trained to know the law, have the privilege of never being held accountable if they advise unlawful conduct?

That stance seems especially unwarranted since lawyers can offer legal advice in such a way as to account for differing points of view when addressing controversial legal issues. In fact, lawyers are mandated to at least consider opposing points of view. They may, moreover, refer to moral and political considerations when advising clients, not purely legal ones. And yet John Yoo and other administration attorneys wrote one-sided arguments about crucial aspects of the coercive interrogation policy. It is perfectly legitimate to ask, given the controversial nature of their conclusions and the importance of their work, why they crafted their arguments in the way that they did.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Stimulus From Below

















Stimulus From Below
In order to appreciate the breadth and ambition of the economic stimulus program Barack Obama has outlined, it's useful to look back to where the debate was just last month. The weeks leading up to the election had been dominated by economic debates at once facile and irrelevant. John McCain argued that a top marginal tax rate of 39 percent was a stalking horse for socialism, and pundits--from Jim Lehrer to David Broder--pushed the perverse, bizarre notion that the economic crisis meant that the next president would have to tighten the federal belt.

Such lunacy prompted us to write on October 8 that "the only way to relieve economic suffering, create jobs and restore stable growth is for the federal government to step in and bolster demand by spending money. Lots of it." A month later, we published an article by University of Massachusetts economist Robert Pollin that spelled out how the money should be spent in order to maximize job creation, increase the long-term productive capacity of the economy and reduce our collective carbon footprint. It's these priorities that are reflected in Obama's initial plan, which focuses on school modernization, energy efficiency in public buildings, healthcare information technology, broadband and basic infrastructure. It's not a coincidence. As the New York Times noted, Pollin's work served as the "blueprint" for the plan.

As a basic outline for what a smart, effective, progressive public works project should look like, Obama's proposal is more than promising: it's stirring. But--and you knew there'd be a but--economic management at this crucial juncture is a matter of triage. If the stimulus is aimed at the millions who have slipped or are about to slip from the middle class into poverty, it must also include support for the millions of Americans who are slipping from working poverty to abject penury, from penury to desperation.

The statistics are terrifying. In 2007 more than 37 million Americans were living in poverty--that's 12.5 percent of the population subsisting (or not) on less than $21,200 a year for a family of four. That shameful figure doesn't take into account this year's rise in unemployment--when 1.9 million Americans lost their jobs. Food stamp caseloads rose by 2.6 million people between August 2007 and August 2008; in twenty-five states, at least one in five children is receiving food stamps. According to the USDA's annual report on food security, nearly one in eight Americans (36.2 million adults and children) were "food insecure," meaning that they had difficulty getting enough food, due to a lack of resources. Social service agencies, shelters and food banks around the country are reporting spikes in the number of people requesting services, just as many of those agencies face dwindling donations and cutbacks.

As Pollin wrote in his article, "Recessions create widespread human suffering. Minimizing the suffering has to be the top priority in fighting the recession....By stabilizing the pocketbooks of distressed households, these measures also help people pay their mortgages and pump money into consumer markets."

This is why increased food stamp benefits, rental assistance and aid to state governments must be at the heart of any stimulus package. Extending unemployment benefits--which fewer than 40 percent of the unemployed now receive--to laid-off low-wage and part-time workers would provide an immediate jolt to the economy. We understand why it's smart politics to pitch all economic policy in terms of the middle class: the poor, as they say, are always with us. But if the economy continues to deteriorate, the poor won't just be with us, they'll be us. And they'll be much harder to ignore.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

DOJ blocking Obama transition team from reviewing documents on wiretapping and torture
































DOJ blocking Obama transition team from reviewing documents on wiretapping and torture
According to the Blog of Legal Times, the Justice Department is blocking President-elect Obama’s agency review team’s request “to review classified legal opinions related to secret CIA and National Security Agency programs.” Included in these documents are the “legal rationale of the NSA’s warrantless spying program and the CIA’s detention and interrogation policies, among other intelligence initiatives.” According to a senior Justice Department official, they are “reluctant to provide the opinions to Obama’s team without permission from the two intelligence agencies whose activities they address.” (HT: Daily Kos and Talk Left)

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Hannity Demands Presidential Transparency








































Hannity Demands Presidential Transparency
A giddy Sean Hannity related the charges against Illinois' newly indicted Governor Wednesday, taking aim at President-Elect Obama and his transition team over contradictory statements issued concerning Obama's contacts with Gov. Blagojevich.

Hannity ridiculed Obama who has been touting his administration's intent on a new standard in transparency, publicizing a "Your Place At The Table" feature on his change.gov website in which thousands of comments and questions from ordinary citizens are posted publicly and reviewed by his team. Also posted are white papers and letters from industry, unions, local governments and other organizations so the public can see who is contacting the team and what they are saying.

Mocking Obama's move toward transparency with sneering cynicism, Hannity demanded the transition team immediately turn over all records relating to any and all contact with Blago, despite the fact that prosecutors already have this correspondence in hand.

It is refreshing to see Hannity at last taking a stand in favor of, even demanding transparency. He railed against corruption and despicable pay-for-play by elected officials throughout his broadcast, breaking his years long tradition of looking the other way while the Bush administration has refused to turn over records on a number of monumentally crucial issues.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

For Bush's staff, upbeat talking points on his tenure











































For Bush's staff, upbeat talking points on his tenure
Reporting from Washington -- In case any Bush administration officials have trouble summing up the boss' record, the White House is providing a few helpful suggestions.

A two-page memo that has been sent to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches.

Titled "Speech Topper on the Bush Record," the talking points state that Bush "kept the American people safe" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained "the honor and the dignity of his office."

The document presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success.

It mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency: the collapse of the housing market and major financial services companies, the flawed intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina or the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

In a section on the economy, speakers are invited to say that Bush cut taxes after 2001, setting the stage for years of job growth.

As for the current economic crisis, the memo says that Bush "responded with bold measures to prevent an economic meltdown."

The document is otherwise silent on the recession, which claimed 533,000 jobs in November, the highest number in 34 years.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Obama May Tap a Strong Progressive to Manage Our Wilderness









































Obama May Tap a Strong Progressive to Manage Our Wilderness By Roberto Lovato
Anyone who has visited a national park or traversed the country's diverse wilderness comes home with gorgeous, yet distressing images of it; those returning from a visit to one of the more than 562 tribes the federal government recognizes and is supposed to assist also bring back sad stories about it; and those of us who enjoy camping or fishing or hunting inevitably return home talking about it. "It" is the scenery and life found on the millions of acres of federal land left blemished and vulnerable by Bush Administration's Department of the Interior (DOI).

As urbanization, economic restructuring and the insatiable lust for land and natural resources continue to threaten the still-astonishingly beautiful and rich land of this country, we should all care about whom President-elect Obama chooses to lead the DOI. The urgency of these issues came home twice this week as the Bush Administration delivered two parting gifts to big mining interests by rescinding two important regulations -- one requiring the DOI to prevent mining companies from dumping waste near public streams and another protecting federal land near the Grand Canyon from mining and oil and gas development.

In order to deal with such challenges to the land and people under the purview of the Department, which is charged with managing most federally-owned land as well as with managing relationships with Native American peoples, the Obama Administration must appoint someone with the experience, expertise and political sophistication to lead nothing less than a New Deal for the land and people our government deals with.

Of all the candidates being vetted by the Obama transition team for this complex and challenging responsibility, none can match the unique qualifications of Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ). Grijalva, who was the leading voice denouncing this week's most recent giveaway to mining companies by the Bush Administration, will bring urgently needed balance and poise to a federal land management bureaucracy that has pushed we the people into dangerous disequilibrium with the land we live on- and love. Appointing Grijalva, who was elected Co-Chair the Congressional Progressive Caucus, will also bring much-needed political balance to the Obama cabinet than some of the Republican-lite Democrats also being considered for the DOI post like California Blue Dog Democrat, Mike Thompson.

Like almost all of the previous Secretaries of the Interior, Grijalva hails from the West, more specifically Arizona, where his 7th Congressional district seat has provided him with the kind of experience and leadership we will need in a DOI Secretary.

Grijalva's willingness to reverse the values and practices instituted by the Bush Administration's Department of the Interior are well-illustrated by his leadership of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee of the 110th Congress. Most recently, he spearheaded efforts to stop the planned re-mining of the Black Mesa, located in northern Arizona. In a recent letter to current DOI Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, Grijalva called on the Bush Administration to restore some semblance of the natural balance between the diverse interests DOI must manage. "Mining at Black Mesa has caused springs on Hopi lands to dry up and jeopardized the sole source of drinking water for many Hopis and Navajos."

Friday, December 5, 2008

Save the Auto Industry and Kick Its CEOs to the Curb

































Save the Auto Industry and Kick Its CEOs to the Curb

I drive an American car. It's a Chrysler. That's not an endorsement. It's more like a cry for pity. And now for a decades-old story, retold ad infinitum by tens of millions of Americans, a third of whom have had to desert their country to simply find a damn way to get to work in something that won't break down:

My Chrysler is four years old. I bought it because of its smooth and comfortable ride. Daimler-Benz AG owned the company then and had the good grace to place the Chrysler chassis on a Mercedes axle and, man, was that a sweet ride!

When it would start.

More than a dozen times in these years, the car has simply died. Batteries have been replaced, but that wasn't the problem. My dad drives the same model. His car has died many times, too. Just won't start, for no reason at all.

A few weeks ago, I took my Chrysler in to the Chrysler dealer here in northern Michigan -- and the latest fixes cost me $1,400. The next day, the vehicle wouldn't start. When I got it going, the brake-warning light came on. And on and on.

You might assume from this that I couldn't give a rat's ass about these miserably inept crapmobile makers down the road in Detroit city. But I do care. I care about the millions whose lives and livelihoods depend on these car companies. I care about the security and defense of this country because the world is running out of oil -- and when it runs out, the calamity and collapse that will take place will make the current recession/depression look like a Tommy Tune musical.

And I care about what happens with the Big Three because they are more responsible than almost anyone for the destruction of our fragile atmosphere and the daily melting of our polar ice caps.

Congress must save the industrial infrastructure that these companies control and the jobs they create. And it must save the world from the internal-combustion engine. This great, vast manufacturing network can redeem itself by building mass transit and electric/hybrid cars and the kind of transportation we need for the 21st century.

And Congress must do all this by not giving GM, Ford and Chrysler the $34 billion they are asking for in "loans" (a few days ago, they only wanted $25 billion; that's how stupid they are -- they don't even know how much they really need to make this month's payroll. If you or I tried to get a loan from the bank this way, not only would we be thrown out on our ear, the bank would place us on some sort of credit-rating blacklist).

Two weeks ago, the CEOs of the Big Three were tarred and feathered before a congressional committee that sneered at them in a way far different than when the heads of the financial industry showed up two months earlier. At that time, the politicians tripped over each other in their swoon for Wall Street and its Ponzi schemers who had concocted Byzantine ways to bet other people's money on unregulated credit-default swaps, known in the common vernacular as unicorns and fairies.

But the Detroit boys were from the Midwest, the Rust (yuk!) Belt, where they made real things that consumers needed and could touch and buy, and that continually recycled money into the economy (shocking!), produced unions that created the middle class and fixed my teeth for free when I was 10.

For all of that, the auto heads had to sit there in November and be ridiculed about how they traveled to D.C. Yes, they flew on their corporate jets, just like the bankers and Wall Street thieves did in October. But, hey, that was OK! They're the Masters of the Universe! Nothing but the best chariots for Big Finance as they set about to loot our nation's treasury.

Of course, the auto magnates used be the Masters who ruled the world. They were the pulsating hub that all other industries -- steel, oil, cement contractors -- served. Fifty-five years ago, the president of GM sat on that same Capitol Hill and bluntly told Congress, what's good for General Motors is good for the country. Because, you see, in their minds, GM was the country.

What a long, sad fall from grace we witnessed on Nov. 19, when the three blind mice had their knuckles slapped and then were sent back home to write an essay called, "Why You Should Give Me Billions of Dollars of Free Cash." They were also asked if they would work for a dollar a year. Take that! What a big, brave Congress they are! Requesting indentured servitude from (still) three of the most powerful men in the world. This from a spineless body that won't dare stand up to a disgraced president nor turn down a single funding request for a war that neither they nor the American public support. Amazing.

Let me just state the obvious: Every single dollar Congress gives these three companies will be flushed right down the toilet. There is nothing the management teams of the Big Three are going to do to convince people to go out during a recession and buy their big, gas-guzzling, inferior products. Just forget it. And, as sure as I am that the Ford-family-owned Detroit Lions are not going to the Super Bowl -- ever -- I can guarantee you, after they burn through this $34 billion, they'll be back for another $34 billion next summer.

So what to do? Members of Congress, here's what I propose:

1. Transporting Americans is and should be one of the most important functions our government must address. And because we are facing a massive economic, energy and environmental crisis, the new president and Congress must do what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was faced with a crisis (and ordered the auto industry to stop building cars and instead build tanks and planes): The Big Three are, from this point forward, to build only cars that are not primarily dependent on oil and, more importantly to build trains, buses, subways and light rail (a corresponding public-works project across the country will build the rail lines and tracks). This will not only save jobs, but create millions of new ones.

2. You could buy all the common shares of stock in General Motors for less than $3 billion. Why should we give GM $18 billion or $25 billion, or anything? Take the money and buy the company! (You're going to demand collateral anyway if you give them the "loan," and because we know they will default on that loan, you're going to own the company in the end as it is. So why wait? Just buy them out now.)

3. None of us want government officials running a car company, but there are some very smart transportation geniuses who could be hired to do this. We need a Marshall Plan to switch us off oil-dependent vehicles and get us into the 21st century.

This proposal is not radical or rocket science. It just takes one of the smartest people ever to run for the presidency to pull it off. What I'm proposing has worked before. The national rail system was in shambles in the '70s. The government took it over. A decade later, it was turning a profit, so the government returned it to private/public hands, and got a couple billion dollars put back in the treasury.

This proposal will save our industrial infrastructure -- and millions of jobs. More importantly, it will create millions more. It literally could pull us out of this recession.

In contrast, yesterday General Motors presented its restructuring proposal to Congress. They promised, if Congress gave them $18 billion now, they would, in turn, eliminate around 20,000 jobs. You read that right. We give them billions so they can throw more Americans out of work. That's been their Big Idea for the last 30 years -- layoff thousands in order to protect profits. But no one ever stopped to ask this question: If you throw everyone out of work, who's going to have the money to go out and buy a car?

These idiots don't deserve a dime. Fire all of them, and take over the industry for the good of the workers, the country and the planet.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Robert Novak has no regrets for committing treason






















































Novak: ‘I Don’t Think I Hurt Valerie Plame’ And I Would Out Her Again Because The Left ‘Tried To Ruin Me’
During a recent interview with the National Ledger, conservative columnist Robert Novak was asked if he would reveal Valerie Plame Wilson’s secret CIA identity if he could go back and do it all over again. Novak noted that he has previously said he “should have ignored” what he had been told about Plame, but he now claims he is “much less ambivalent“:

NOVAK: I’d go full speed ahead because of the hateful and beastly way in which my left-wing critics in the press and Congress tried to make a political affair out of it and tried to ruin me. My response now is this: The hell with you. They didn’t ruin me. I have my faith, my family, and a good life. A lot of people love me — or like me. So they failed. I would do the same thing over again because I don’t think I hurt Valerie Plame whatsoever.

But of course, Plame was “hurt” because of Novak’s column — she no longer has a career as a covert CIA agent. Moreover, Plame has said that she feared for her and her family’s lives after Novak revealed her identity.

But Novak ignores the point that Plame’s outing had broader national security implications. In fact, Plame’s CIA job was to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and as one former senior intelligence officer put it, the leak made “it harder for other CIA officers to recruit sources.”

more at link

Monday, December 1, 2008

The Ongoing Disgrace of NBC News and Brian Williams








































The Ongoing Disgrace of NBC News and Brian Williams
The New York Times's David Barstow, whose excellent and aggressive journalism led to the uncovering last April of the Pentagon's domestic propaganda program involving network "military analysts," today returns to this topic with another lengthy front-page exposé. Barstow focuses today on the numerous, undisclosed conflicts of interest of Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who continues to be featured frequently by NBC News as an objective analyst as he opines about war policies in which he has a substantial (and concealed) financial stake.

Some of the key facts which Barstow reports concerning the improper behavior of McCaffrey and NBC News were documented all the way back in April, 2003, in this excellent article from The Nation, which Barstow probably should have credited today. That article -- entitled "TV's Conflicted Experts" -- detailed the numerous defense contractors to which McCaffrey had a substantial connection -- including Mitretek, Veritas and Integrated Defense Technologies, all featured by Barstow today -- and highlighted how the policies and viewpoints McCaffrey was advocating as a "military analyst" on NBC directly benefited those companies.

Because those conflicts were brought to light by the anti-war Nation, and because that article was published in April, 2003, as the country was drowning in a war-crazed frenzy, NBC was able to blithely dismiss these concerns, unbelievably telling The Nation that its military analysts' business interests were "not their concern." Unsurprisingly, the Nation article generated little attention and controversy. Few people were interested back then in challenging war-praising retired Generals and the networks which were glorifying the invasion. NBC continued without objection to feature McCaffrey, and the similarly-conflicted retired Gen. Wayne Downing, as objective "military analysts."

Still, what was -- and remains -- most incredible about Barstow's April, 2008 exposé was that, to this day, the networks which featured these highly conflicted "analysts" have never uttered a word about the controversy over the Pentagon's program, despite the fact that it was the subject of an enormous front-page NYT story; members of Congress accused the Pentagon -- rightfully so -- of operating a potentially illegal propaganda operation and demanded information directly from the networks; both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spoke out against the Pentagon's program; and even the Pentagon felt compelled to terminate the program in the wake of the controversy. None of that merited a mention by any of the networks, despite (more accurately: because of) the fact that their own reporting was so directly implicated by the controversy.

As I documented at length at the time, using the thousands of documents Barstow had obtained, the propaganda that the networks broadcast as a result of this "military analyst" program -- about Iraq, Guantanamo and a host of other related issues -- was very coordinated and, by design, implanted falsehoods in virtually every aspect of their "reporting".

The active suppression of this story by the networks -- their decision to conceal from their own viewers the fact that, for years, they presented as "independent" analysts individuals who were working in tandem on "message amplification" with the Pentagon and who had significant business interests in their analysis -- was so severe, so remarkable, that even establishment defenders such as Howie Kurtz and The Politico emphatically protested the networks' silence. Clocks were even created to count the number of days the networks blackballed Barstow's story -- and it currently stands at 223 days, and counting.

Last April, in the wake of Barstow's front-page story, I documented at length numerous other facts featured in today's Barstow article -- including the countless times McCaffrey went on NBC News shows to advocate war policies that directly benefited his undisclosed business interests, as well as the completely deceitful way NBC presented McCaffrey as an independent and objective analyst without ever mentioning any of his multiple activities that clearly called into question his objectivity as an "analyst."

A couple of weeks after Barstow's story was published in April, I noted that Brian Williams had taken the time on his blog to write about and mock multiple, trivial NYT stories from that week, yet had never once mentioned -- either on his network news show or even on his blog -- the extremely incriminating story in the NYT about his repeated reliance over the years on retired Generals -- such as McCaffrey and Downing -- who were active participants in the Pentagon's propaganda program and who were burdened with all sorts of economic ties that created clear though undisclosed conflicts of interests.

In response, Williams finally addressed Barstow's story on his blog (but not on his network news broadcast), yet did so only by ignoring all of the specific, substantive issues that were raised, instead offering a patronizing little lecture about how Williams himself had developed what he called "a close friendship" with both McCaffrey and Downing, and could therefore assure us that "these men are passionate patriots" who would never offer anything but the most honest and forthright assessments. That was the full extent of NBC and Williams' response to this story.

Not only has NBC and Williams suppressed this story, but -- more amazingly still -- they continue to feature McCaffrey as an "analyst" on American war policies still without disclosing or even alluding to his participation in the Pentagon program and/or his still-extant business stakes in the policies he's being asked to assess. Just this past Thursday night -- 3 days ago -- Williams featured McCaffrey on his NBC Nightly News program to opine about American policy in Afghanistan, and McCaffrey was identified only as a Retired General and NBC Military Analyst.