[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Crooks and Liars' LiveJournal:
| Monday, December 1st, 2008 | |
| 6:02 pm | Torture isn't just morally sick -- it's also ineffective and counterproductive
Video courtesy Amnesty International. A man using the pseudonym Matthew Alexander has written a truly remarkable op-ed for the Washington Post discussing effective interrogation of enemy combatants -- which most decidedly does not include torture:
If the moral argument cannot persuade the defenders of torture, then perhaps the practical one will. "Alexander" has written a book on the subject that I'm ordering today. |
| 5:00 pm | Chris Wallace Asks If Robert Gates Will Follow Orders
On Fox News Sunday Nov. 30, 2008. Chris Wallace talks to Lindsey Graham and Clair McCaskill about the pick of Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense. First up is Lindsey Graham and after expressing his approval of the pick of Gates and the others on Obama's future National Security team and managing to put in one more plug for how well the surge supposedly has worked in Iraq, Graham plays concern troll for Obama and says he hopes he listens to Gen. Petraeus. I'm sorry but I thought Gen. Petraeus said that he would follow the orders of the new President and not the other way around. But then Petraeus is one of those very "serious" people that the GOP has practically anointed to sainthood, so why should we expect anything different from Graham? Wallace moves on to Clair McCaskill and wants to know why even though McCaskill was critical of Gates that he is now the right man to pull our forces out of Iraq. McCaskill reminds Wallace that an important part of the SOFA agreement is that it embraces the kind of time table that Barack Obama made a foundation of his campaign. She tells Wallace that at least Gates is no ideologue and that Obama wants the best and the brightest for his Cabinet and not just those that supported him. Then Wallace throws out this doozie:
How utterly ridiculous. Can anyone imagine the Villagers asking this of a Republican President-elect? Of John McCain had he won? Of Bush? After McCaskill responds that of course Gates will follow orders Wallace asks Graham the same question and they blather on about whether Obama will listen to Gates or Petraeus and Wallace asks if the pick of Gates means that Obama might modify his time line. Chris Wallace, no one knows what Obama is going to do once he takes office but the one thing we know he won't be doing is taking orders from Bob Gates or David Petraeus, or skipping out like our current Commander in Chief and letting his Vice-President run a shadow Presidency while he clears brush at the ranch. |
| 2:45 pm | Why Bush's presidency was an Epic Fail
Karen DeYoung at the WaPo had an interesting report on the change of style that Obama is bringing to the White House, particularly in how it approaches the military:
There's no better way to lose a war than to have your on-the-ground decisions be forced through an ideological prism. And it was obvious even to outsiders that this was how Bush was conducting the Iraq war -- indeed, it was the decisive factor behind the very decision to invade in the first place. It's even more telling that the military minds involved saw that this was occurring too. But in truth, this constitutes not merely the entire Bush approach to governance, but conservative governance as well. Thus -- to use one example out of many -- during Bush's tenure there was not a single economic problem that could not be solved by anything other than tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of the financial sector. Of course, we now realize that this was simply a prescription for gobbling PCBs after a diagnosis of cancer. So when we hear conservatives tell themselves that the reason they lost this last election was their failure to adhere to "conservative principles," we know they're continuing to cling to the very reason they lost. Because such adherence inherently means that these "principles" -- that is, conservative dogma about how they believe the world ought to be, particularly the insistence that government itself is the problem, when the reality is that bad governance is the problem -- trump their ability to face realities on the ground. From the outset, it's clear that reversing that approach is the most fundamental aspect of the "change" that Barack Obama intends to bring to the White House. And that is a very good sign indeed. |
| 4:00 pm | Mike's Blog Roundup VetVoice: Interrogator who located Zarqawi rips U.S, torture policy Attackerman: A one man military-industrial complex Ken Silverstein: Accountability, there and here The Mahablog: Neal Gabler explains why Joe McCarthy — not Barry Goldwater, and certainly not Saint Ronald — was the real father of modern movement conservatism. The Agonist: Bangkok Airport Connecting.the.Dots: The comparisons were inevitable: two charismatic presidents in their forties and their dazzling wives moving into the White House with young children. |
| 1:30 pm | Headzup: Bush's View Of Success From Headzup Nov. 28, 2008.
|
| 4:30 am | Open Thread from Hitchcock's Notorious (1946). Filmsite.org notes:
Open thread below... |
| 4:00 am | |
| 3:00 am | The Chris Matthews Show: Obama's Problems Will Come From The Angry Left, Not Republicans
John Amato has blogged about this and this clip from this week's The Chris Matthews Show is proof positive that the progressive blogosphere must be smart about picking battles in pushing a liberal agenda for America. Let's face it, you and I and the rest of the liberal blogosphere have been right more often than not and certainly exponentially over the Villagers that populate The Chris Matthews Show. But they're not ready to give up their coveted place at the table, and certainly not to upstart bloggers who don't have the decency to take them at their word any longer. So to those oh-so-wise Beltway bobbleheads, we will be the "angry left" that Obama must marginalize in order to have a successful presidency. It won't be the Republicans with their bag of obstructionist tricks, ones of which WaPo's Ceci Connolly doesn't even have memory, that give Obama a hard time, it will be us, the "angry left." We are the ones to not give Obama a "honeymoon period" and we will be the ones fighting him as he attempts to execute his agenda. Sigh. Do anyone of these chuckleheads ever consider that the reason the left has been so "angry" for the last eight plus years is that what we've said and what we've valued has been criticized, dismissed, sneered, condemned, denounced and our characters attacked? Of course not. And when the nation shows that they have awakened to what we've been saying all along and announced with their vote that they want to give the left a shot, we're still criticized, dismissed, sneered, condemned, denounced and our characters attacked because we might like to see some people actually reflective of our values in office. Good to see the open minds of the Very Serious Villagers remain. Would that they would be so condemning of those who have been so very wrong all this time. Transcripts (courtesy of Heather) below the fold MATTHEWS: But those kinds of issues that brought really bad news to a lot of, we had the Clinton administration with all the brain power they had and they had a lot of brain power, they were stymied. Right, David? All of the sudden they got the gays in the military hit them right between the eyes. They didn't want to bring it up and it came up as the first issue. IGNATIUS: They ran into the wall of cultural politics, wedge issues right in the beginning. You want to think, I want to think that one of the lessons of this election season is that the politics of division don't work. That one of the things that hurt McCain and Palin was that they were just too divisive and the country's sick of that. And so you'd think, you'd want to think the Republicans would get that message and they’ll be more careful on these wedge issues that that's going to be less important going forward for the Republicans than it's been. KAY: It's very hard in this climate to see people getting as exorcised about gays in the military as they did in 1992. I just can't... CONNOLLY: Well it may not be gays in the military but I guarantee you there are going to be hot button issues that are going to come up. You're already seeing some of that agitated. [crosstalk] MATTHEWS: If we try to put up the trade walls, are we going to have a fight on labor issues like this card check thing, about being able to organize individual decision making rather than a big voting election kind of thing. Those kind of issues can really, as you say, could divide the Democrats, right? CONNOLLY: Absolutely but here's the key to this: Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff. What did he do when he was in the House Democratic Caucus? He often was the person who had to break it to the liberals in that caucuses that things were not going to go their way. MATTHEWS: Who's going to break it to the blogosphere? They don't like anything that looks like a give to the right. Where are they doing to be on this thing? Are they going to give him a break if he doesn't go hard left and doesn't do what they want? WHITAKER: I think that Obama has to worry as much about the far left as he does about the far right. But look, you know I think that it could be a plus for him in some ways because I think they are going to give him what you might call a “Sista Soulja moment” when he can stand up to them. MATTHEWS: Right. WHITAKER: And talking to some veterans in those early Clinton wars who think that particularly this issue of the card check push by the labor unions to change the rules on organizing could be a moment for him either by delaying that, standing up to the unions, of positioning himself more in the middle and making it harder for the far right to position him the way they tried to during the campaign. MATTHEWS: You see that, David? IGNATIUS: This is where the economic crisis, you know, ends up being crucial because people are angry. The country's furious and a lot of these really divisive issues I think will come from the left, not from the right and they'll come from unions, from working people who are enraged at bailouts for big banks and wealthy executives and the pressure on Obama to check some what he'd like to do on the economy I think is going to be very strong from angry people. MATTHEWS: And you say the left is going to fight anything that looks too conciliatory? IGNATIUS: You can, it's been obvious now for the past few weeks that the anger in the country is working its way through Congress and it's, the bailouts might make sense in a macro-economic sense but they're increasingly tough politics. MATTHEWS: Bottom line, we asked the Matthews Meter, twelve of our regulars given the mountain of problems he faces will the right give Obama a longer than usual honeymoon. Our panel is always filled with cockeyed optimists. Eight say yes he gets a longer honeymoon from the right. Four say no, Katy you're with the optimists. KAY: I am. I'm not sure I'm cockeyed but I am probably an optimist. I think for all the reasons that we've been saying about the mood in the country and the desire to get things done I just don't think that the right at this particular juncture can be seen to stymie an economic agenda in particular. I think that they have to give him the benefit of the doubt for a period of time. MATTHEWS: Okay big time. Will the Republicans get out of his way and not use any obstructions to stop from getting through a big economic package once he gets in office. KAY: I think they'll give him... MATTHEWS: No procedural tricks. KAY: I think they'll give him three months. MATTHEWS: Three months. WHITAKER: Six months. CONNOLLY : I don't think they've figured out that kind of procedural trick. MATTHEWS: [laughs] You know what I mean. Filibuster, all kinds of ways to slow the…will they use those tools to slow him down? CONNOLLY: Doubt it. IGNATIUS: No ,the Republicans will help him out on the package. His problem is going to be with the left, not the Republicans. |
| 2:00 am | This Week Panel: Concern Trolling The Obama Administration To Be More Republican
Damn it, it's a center-right nation, and don't you forget it! I swear to you that is the editorial slant taken by pretty much all the bobbleheads, but none so nakedly as This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Note the make up of the panel is basically four Republicans to one Democrat (with all their concern trolling, I generously figure that Brazile and Stephanopoulos together equal just one Democrat). What's with that ratio? The American public has soundly and decisively voted against the GOP policies and the Bush doctrine, so what are frightened little Villagers to do but put on some former Bushies, Matthew Dowd and Torie Clarke, along with conservative stalwart George Will. George Will, the sagest one of all, metaphorically pats Donna Brazile on the head and suggests that perhaps all the doom and gloom on the economy is unnecessary, as if Donna Brazile is the one to blame for the bearish outlook. He suggests that the foreclosure rate isn't as bad as everyone seems to think, that the unemployment rolls aren't that bad (WTF? 94% of the people who want to work are working? WANT to work?) and that this is strictly a financial sector problem, ignoring the fact that if the financial sector cannot lend money, it becomes a disaster to the consumer and small business owner as well. Typical Republican missing the forest for the trees. Meanwhile, former Pentagon spokesperson Torie Clarke rings the warning bell that all these bailouts (not questioned when AIG and BearStearns came a-calling, mind you) are going to cause us to "out-France France"! Quel horreur! And Matthew Dowd insists that if Obama really wants to represent change from how things are done in Washington, he's going to have to reject a Democratic party-led program. Um, huh? The logic of this escapes me. The American public has rejected GOP policies and rule and so therefore, Obama must reject a Democratic program? I have an idea for you, Matt (along with all of the ABC news bookers): how about we give a Democratic program (and a Democratic panel) a try for once? THAT would be a change. |
| 1:00 am | NY Times Urges Bush Not To "Abuse Pardons"; Bill Kristol Urges Bush To Pardon Torturers And Wiretapp
A tale of two moral compasses. The NY Times issued an editorial exhorting Bush to not "abuse" the pardon privilege:
A nice, if a bit naive, sentiment. The editorial goes on to point out how past presidents have abused the privilege, so it's not without precedent to have Bush issue pardons to whom he wishes to repay for their political loyalty (Hi, Scooter!). But it is svengaliesque William Kristol whose advice will much more likely be heeded by his PNAC buddies and disciples in the Executive Branch. He argues in his Weekly Standard that the right thing for Bush to do is to pardon any and all foot soldiers in his War on Terror™:
Unbelievable. This goes beyond immorality and straight into a complete lack of humanity. And let me for the record reiterate that Bill "Brave with other people's kids" Kristol has NEVER been right. Not once. Not when he cheerleaded the Iraq invasion and lied about the reasons. Not when he cheerleaded Sarah Palin and led the campaign to get her on the GOP ticket. Not once in his weekly appearances on And sadly, the Villagers will look to this and not blink an eye. |
| 12:00 am | Late Edition: UAW President Gettlefinger Pushes Back Against Romney's Anti Union Screed
On Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer asks UAW President Ron Gettlefinger for his take on Mitt Romney's heartless and callously Republican "solution" to the auto industry crisis: take away health benefits and pensions for the laborers, otherwise known as "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." It's curious to me that CNN, the NY Times or basically, anyone cares what Romney thinks on the Detroit bailout. His apparent bona fides being that he was the son of George Romney, while completely ignoring George's legacy at AMC, which was to successfully compete against the Big 3 by making more economic and efficient cars to their larger gas guzzlers. Does Romney urge the Big 3 to innovate and stop making cars Americans don't want to buy? Of course not. Does he urge them to make sensible changes to their lending arms? Uh uh. No, this is all the fault of those pesky blue collar employees who have the nerve to expect the auto industry to uphold their pension and healthcare commitments. The nerve! Gettlefinger deftly charges that it's not surprising that the Republican would point the finger at workers, and it, like most Republican tenets, is not based in reality. But when he tries to bring up that this is a worldwide economic issue (because the lending arms of these automakers do have tentacles all over the globe), and it bears little difference from the financial bailout for which the Republicans were only too happy to pony up funds, Blitzer interrupts him to bring up yet another inane and irrelevant talking point: whether the CEOs will arrive in Washington DC via personal jet again. I forget, was this an issue for BearStearns and AIG when they put their hand out? Way to get to the heart of such a critical issue for so many Americans, Wolfie. Full transcripts below the fold BLITZER: You heard Mitt Romney, the former Republican presidential candidate, the son himself of theauto industry, is father George Romney, the Governor of Michigan, was a leader in the US auto industry in his day. This is what Mitt Romney said on this program exactly one week ago.
BLITZER: You want to respond to Gov. Romney? GETTLEFINGER: Well, first of all, Gov. Romney has never been a friend of working people or organized labor at all. Secondly, based on the changes that we made in our contracts, we are competitive. And I would challenge Mitt Romney on that. If we want to throw our retirees our on the street, if that’s what Mitt Romney wants to do, let him do it. We’re not prepared to do that. And it’s hard for us to compete when we subsidize state by state the foreign brands to come in here. But Wolf, I’m telling you, that based on the changes we made in our contract the hard sacrifices that were made by the men and women of the UAW, we have put these companies in a competitive position. And I didn’t hear him talking about the safety records that we have, I didn’t hear him talking about the quality, where we set the benchmark in many areas or the productivity. And it’s wrong for people like that, who really has no experience in the industry, to come out here and to point the blame at organized labor. In this case, to point the blame at management. This is a downturn being felt around the world and 4% of our Gross Domestic Product goes right to the automobile industry. We cannot afford to let these companies fail. And it’s just incumbent on this Congress, when they come back together, the week of December the 8th to vote in favor of this low interest bridge loan. And that’s what it is. It’s a bridge loan that’s going to be paid back by these companies. And you know, Wolf, we’re… BLITZER: We’re out of time, Mr. Gettlefinger, because we’re limited. One quick final question…it’s a sensitive issue, probably in the scheme of things--financially, not that significant--but in terms of public relations, very important. The CEOs of the big three auto companies, when they come to Washington in the coming days, you want them to fly commercial or you want them to fly on their private jets? GETTLEFINGER: Well, there’s no question they’re going to come in different ways. But the sad thing about that is, it became a distraction. It became a soundbyte, and look, I’m one to be critical of management, I’ll do that privately. But I would say this, let’s get focused back on the issue. And that’s our economy. This economic downturn that we’re in , that was not created by the industry and again, it’s being felt around the world. Other countries, other governments are given consideration to helping the auto industry; our government should be no different. By the way, you know, we’re no different that Citigroup, AIG, BearStearns. We will bring a plan, they didn’t have to. But we’re prepared to bring a plan to get this loan. BLITZER: Well, good luck, Mr. Gettlefinger, good luck to the auto industry. |
| Sunday, November 30th, 2008 | |
| 11:00 pm | CNN's Hero of the Year: Liz McCartney
For all the really lousy things I could say about CNN and their coverage of the news in general, I've got to give them some kudos for the special they aired, 2008 CNN Hero of the Year. They did a great job of bringing attention to the many people that are doing great work that is going unnoticed by the general public, and none more worthy than their winner this year Liz McCartney who is dedicated to making sure Hurricane Katrina survivors in St. Bernard Parish have a chance of returning to their homes. It would be nice to see CNN do a bit more of this sort of coverage on their network minus the fanfare on a regular basis. When they start asking Joe Lieberman why he hasn't done his job as Committee Chair and investigated the waste and fraud by the Bush administration after the hurricanes I'll believe they're actually concerned about what happens to the residents of the Gulf coast. For more check out CNN's web site here. |
| 9:00 pm | Mid Day Open Thread From the incomparable Betty Bowers: Tonya went to bed last night with a tumbler of cold tequila and a head full of comfy knowledge. She knew that the Lord Jesus would answer her prayer to never let no colored Muslim communist terrorist be no durn president. She was certain she would wake up to find that sassy Sarah Palin and her running mate, a wonderfully mavericky war hero, had been elected instead. In her Christian heart, Tonya was confident that Americans were every bit as racist as Republicans hoped they’d turn out to be, as the much discussed, posted about and wished for “Bradley Effect” would work its reactionary magic at the polls. Read on... |
| 8:01 pm | This Week: In Memoriam
This Week with George Stephanopoulos marks the passing of politician Cecil Underwood, playwright William Gibson and Broadway impresario Gerald Schoenfeld. In addition, the Pentagon has released the names of 4 servicemembers who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan this week. The total number of allied troops killed in Iraq now totals 4,521, per iCasualties.org. For the same week, Iraq Body Count lists 134 Iraqi civilian deaths. |
| 7:00 pm | Texas DA Reveals Evidence That Led to Dick Cheney Indictment From MichaelMoore.com: Guerra unveils why his investigation led him to the Vice President.
For more continue reading here. |
| 6:47 pm | Saxby Chambliss on race and recessions
Saxby Chambliss continues to Earlier this month on Hannity and Colmes, Chambliss gave as the reason for this closeness of the result that the Obama people getting out their vote, especially early.
Gee, I wonder who he was talking about? Think Progress has the video. And for the record, Chambliss got about 70% of the "our folks" (white) vote. The other factor for the surprisingly close result earlier was Chambliss's support of the bailout package in September, despite Chambliss throwing cold water on such recession talk a few months earlier, saying "I don't know if we're in a recession. I don't know what that even means." And that's true, he apparently doesn't, giving the definition as "two consecutive months of negative GDP growth". In fact, it's quarters, not months. |
| 5:00 pm | D.C. Establishment Pressuring Obama on Iran?
There's a rapidly developing consensus among Washington's Very Serious person set that Obama's plans to negotiate with Iran should get only one try, and if that fails then the bombing should begin. Today Iran's parliamentary Speaker and the Ayatollah's most trusted negotiator, Ali Larijani, told the press that Iran's parliament is considering a request from the U.S. Congress to "parliamentary negotiations between the two countries". (And just wait till the wingnuts start howlking about a Dem Congress sidelining the Lame Duck In Chief!) Also today, France's President Sarkozy partly walked back his previous confrontational rhetoric on Iran and said that Obama's statements "reflect our shared views on the necessity of dialogue without concessions with Tehran as the only way to obtain a negotiated end to the crisis." It would seem that prospects for an international consensus on negotiations, and prospects for Iran actually taking those negotiations seriously, are quite hopeful. Yet David Ignatius in today's WaPo leads the bellicose VSP charge to give Obama a very short timeline to make any diplomatic initiatives work, echoing the tack of more rightwing and neocon thinktanks. He begins by lamenting the fact that the Bush administration's hawks appear to have failed in their push to attack Iran and then recapitulates hawkish hype over Iran's nuclear program, conveniently forgetting that both the IAEA and the last US intelligence community's NIE say there's no evidence Iran has a weapons program behind its civilian one. He then goes on to catalogue repeated Bush administration failures in the diplomatic arena, seemingly without irony, and to say that Obama must have a Plan B if his own venture fails at the first hurdle.
Two ignored "grand bargains", in 2003 and 2006, and a sham of diplomacy in the meantime that set out as a precondition exactly what was to be negotiated. Is it any wonder, then, that Iranians see America as "an aggressive adversary that wants regime change" after the last eight years of Bush and the neocons, to say nothing off nonsense like this from VSPs? Yet despite this, and despite the fact that Bush squandered repeated opportunities over the years since 2003, Obama should "start thinking" about what happens if Iran is slow to be convinced that an Obama administration is different? One gets the distinct impression that a failure at the first hurdle would please Ignatius very much indeed. Shouldn't an Obama administration get at least as long to get it right as Bush did to foul it up? "What they will do if negotiations fail?" How about more negotiations, over the course of years, until we know there's definitely no hope of resolving issues and differences? That's how diplomacy is supposed to work in the world outside the cloisters of the American-exceptionalist D.C. set. Crossposted from Newshoggers |
| 4:00 pm | Mike's Blog Roundup Democrats.com: Pardon Scorecard: Dictatorship or Democracy? Buck Naked Politics: The Bush Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Barack Obama, that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job. uggabugga: A Robert Rubin bash-a-thon..."nobody was prepared for the crisis of '08." The Smirking Chimp: Israel's Settlement on Capital Hill The Impolitic: Palin is the new Paris Hilton The Opinion Mill's Weekend Bookchat asks: Is Ann Coulter becoming a Cenobite? Is Bill Ayers worth listening to, let alone reading? Will I.F. Stone ever stop being the target of posthumous smear attempts? And do you know any good black authors to suggest to white people? |
| 2:00 pm | PBS Now: Robert Kuttner on Obama's Challenge
From PBS's Now with David Brancaccio:
You can watch the rest of the segment here and Jed has more over at DailyKOS. |
| 1:00 pm | Sunday Morning Bobblehead Thread
Pretty spare offerings this Sunday. The Villagers' obsessive use of movement conservatives seems to be abating somewhat, but you'll notice once again that very few bona fide liberals are few and far between still:
What's catching your eye this morning? |
