Yay DCup!

Atrios also has the fantastic Echidne, one of the best writers on the Internet. And Attaturk. And, yes, me, and I *am* chopped liver, thanks for asking. Dr. Atta though has a co-blogger the incomparable RIL, and I share space with Molly Ivors, so it seems your thesis holds in our cases as well. Slainte!

Ok, I'm stupid. Why does CNN still say Hillary won even after several updates?

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

Am I just missing something?

Huck Darwin!!

http://www.cafepress.com/huckingkidding
http://www.yougottabehuckingkiddingme.com/

Barack rocks Iowa.

I found the msnbc commentary regarding Iowa insipid at best.

Love Street @ 7:

"...Why the D-cup mention?.."

The name of the blog associated with the D-cup mention POLITITS

Next time you're at the store, see if you can pick up a sense of humour.

Sheesh.

Huckabee crossed a picket line.

Don't let anyone forget this.

Obama wins and Giuliani gets bitch slapped.

a very good day.

Obama/Edwards 2008

Anybody who goes by the nickname "Huck" is just asking for trouble.

Paul @ 18:

Obama wins and Giuliani gets bitch slapped.

a very good day.

Obama/Edwards 2008

Amen

A
B
C
easy as
123.......

And I am pleased with how Dr. Paul did, considering how little MSM coverage he got until the Tea Party.

artimis langford starring as site moniker sitting in for cardigan who was only gonna stand in for i forgot what other names ive used on here @ 9:

Love Street @ 7:

Why in God's name to us women have to always be "sexy" to be acknowledged? Why the D-cup mention? Maybe you're just great at blogging or photoshopping or whatever. I am so sick of this over sexualizing. Why don't we mention what size undies John Amato wears? If he has 8 inches of manliness, is he more legit? It's always been a man's world and today's women willingly fall right into the trap. If you can't beat em', join em' I guess. I've had it up to my nips of this kind of thing!

i think "d cup" is some ones name..

Still, one hell of a rant. I bow down in respect esp. for the "I've had it up to my nips" part. Nice touch. *g* oops, nice touch is just a figure of speech, too!

After-Caucus Speeches Recap
with video links!

Huckster
Jeepers, I won! Praise Jesus! You know, the Founding Christians said that we're all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and I endeavor to be America's Christian servant. Well, thanks to Jesus Christ, his heavenly dad, a holy ghost, and all my new bestest friends here in Iowa, I'm this much closer tonight. Boy, I sure wish the election were over. But this is more like a marathon. And tonight we ran 50% of it! That's right, Iowa is half the battle. Why, golly, I should be all moved in to the presidential palace a day or so after New Hampshire --where I'm off to right now to talk to my new bestest friends.

Mittens
Well, the people have spoken . . . the bastards. I came in second. But don't count me out! It ain't over 'til it's over; lost a battle, not a war; yada yada yada. Hey, you know what? Nobody had ever heard of me just a while ago, and I live in a state full of filthy Democrats, so to come in second really ain't so bad! I'll come in first overall. Because Washington doesn't work anymore, and I'm the guy to fix it. The people of this nation want health care for everyone, and Washington can't think of a way to do it that doesn't involve universal health care. That's just messed up! Anyway, see ya soon!

Clinton
You know what tonight was? The greatest night ever for My Party! My Party turned out in droves! More than ever! With enthusiasm! You know what that means? My Party is going to win the White House in November! Thank you all! All the members of My Party! Oh, I am so ready to lead My Party and my country! Remember, now, there is still a choice out there for the rest of the states. Which member of MY Party will you choose?

Obama
I'm a uniter, not a divider! Keep hope alive! Onto New Hampshire! Only in America!

Edwards
Perhaps a "Tidal Wave of Change" isn't the most brilliant of metaphors, but Edwards actually used his after-caucus speech to talk about important issues.

Ghouliani*
What the? Don't you Iowans remember 9/11? Seriously, now, nine eee-fucking-leven! Come on people!

*Not an actual recap. Not based on any speech. Well, 'cept all of his other speeches.

Olbermann, is even getting in on the Edwards bashing! What the fuck Keith? Say it ain't so.

The more the m$m tries to ignore and/or denigrate Edwards, the more I am convinced that he is the right candidate.

CD @ 16:

Huckabee crossed a picket line.

Don't let anyone forget this.

And Jon Stewart is going to do the same thing. They say it's to protect the other employees of the show. I say it's union busting and it pisses me off!!

kravitz @ 19:

Huck was superb on Leno. Whomever got him on that show is either a genius, or knows how to spread walking around money on the ministers at GE/Peacock. (And who could that be?) The line that I think helped him win - people would rather vote for the guy they work with than the guy who fired him. He was warm and personable, rather than distant, aloof, and manufactured (think Mitt & Hill). I'm a Dem, and an Obamaniac, but last night, Hick-He-Be became Aw-Shucks-I-Beat-The-Phony.

When MSNBC's David Shuster says: "That if Ronald Reagan can be called The Great Communicator, then Mike Huckabee is The Greatest Communicator", (emphasis his), that's something I'd pay attention to.

6 weeks ago nobody, outside of Stephen Colbert, had heard of him, and yet somehow he beat the pants off of the wealthiest and most organized guy in the race?

You do the math, and yes, Huckabee made Fred Thompson's appearance on Leno look like a joke in comparison, and let's not forget that Frederick of Hollywood is a professional actor and Huckabee isn't.

I am so not looking forward to Colbert's "I told you so-s" when he comes back next Monday night.

If you thought Stephen was insufferable before, he's going to be positively UNBEARABLE with the gloating.

Don't say you weren't warned.

~Nyc

You know it strikes me that the most dangerous thing about a man like Huckabee right now, is he thinks he really IS favored by God now.

People like that can be very, very dangerous. Best to keep an eye on that one, IMHO.

GAME TIME: Now that things are starting to sort out fill out your candidate/cabinet cards...

Pres: Edwards
Vice: Obama
-
SoS: Richardson
SoD: Sestak or Webb
SotH: Kucinich
SML: Dodd

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 33:

ArtiseLife @ 30:

CD @ 16:

Huckabee crossed a picket line.

Don't let anyone forget this.

And Jon Stewart is going to do the same thing. They say it's to protect the other employees of the show. I say it's union busting and it pisses me off!!

It's like 3 months! If you aren't part of the union, you ain't getting paid.

I don't know about you, but how long can you and your family have a job where you don't get paid?

The WGA should have struck before the studio stockpiled that many scripts, instead of just talking about it (and tipping them off). They kind of brought the severity of this strike on themselves.

Having said that I do support them, and the studio heads are bastards for not even coming back to the table to talk.

The union organizers gave the OK to Leno (but not NBC). I assume they also gave the OK to Stewart (but not... whoever owns Comedy Central). It's complicated, as I understand it.

Personally, I think there's a real opportunity to do something good here. WHAT if Stewart does the show straight? I mean completely sober, no laughs, no smiles. Nothing silly in the least.

He is REALLY good at sharp, insightful, no BS interviews when he wants to and why not do things that way -- become a "real" news show -- until the strike is over? Produce filmed street pieces and in studio interviews? Perhaps even devote the first few episodes to the background of the strike, it's progress, etc.

Could be great, and a nice nod to respect his comedy writers. Then again the last 3 months are a gold-mine of stupidity... I'll forgive him if he just can't resist. I mean... freaking HUCKABEE?!

I know what it's like to go without a paycheck for longer than 3 months. I get that part perfectly; but unless everybody sticks together for the greater good the strike is useless. Workers in the USA have to get their power back. We need the money and the benefits; I know for sure that I do. While the other employees are out because of the strike they should try to organize as well. I'm a Daily Show junkie; but I disagree strongly with Jon crossing the picket line. Very strongly.

Love Street @ 7:

Why in God's name to us women have to always be "sexy" to be acknowledged? Why the D-cup mention? Maybe you're just great at blogging or photoshopping or whatever. I am so sick of this over sexualizing. Why don't we mention what size undies John Amato wears? If he has 8 inches of manliness, is he more legit? It's always been a man's world and today's women willingly fall right into the trap. If you can't beat em', join em' I guess. I've had it up to my nips of this kind of thing!

haha, calm down. somebody didn't get asked to prom...

Mel @ 35:

CD @ 16:

Huckabee crossed a picket line.

Don't let anyone forget this.

That's the least of his worries if he is in fact now relevant. There's his kid who lynched a dog and huckie got him off. There's DuMonde. There's his wedding registry established 20 years after marriage that coincided with his buying a big house and did he really lose 110 lbs through exercise and dieting, make 400,000 dollars writing a book about it, but secretly had a gastric bypass? His gay patient view in the 90's, his other book that suggests women have too much power in the workforce and that's part of the problem with america, and on and on.

How could you forget my favorite? Governor Gomer Huckabee's touching concern for Canada's capital building... you know their "National Igloo"?

Lordy that man's useless.

And again, I'm almost positive that Stewart (and Colbert) got special permission from the WGA to return to work on the show (though not the Oscars or whatever). I can't find verification though; perhaps I'm wrong. He's also been paying his staff! So don't be too pissed at him.

kravitz @ 19:

Huck was superb on Leno. Whomever got him on that show is either a genius, or knows how to spread walking around money on the ministers at GE/Peacock. (And who could that be?) The line that I think helped him win - people would rather vote for the guy they work with than the guy who fired him. He was warm and personable, rather than distant, aloof, and manufactured (think Mitt & Hill). I'm a Dem, and an Obamaniac, but last night, Hick-He-Be became Aw-Shucks-I-Beat-The-Phony.

And sorry writers, including the ones I went to school with and almost became...the public puts their foreclosures and gloomy economics over the perceived catfights of connected well-to-do mediots arguing how much more money they should make over anything requiring no more physical labor than typing or lifting coffee cups.

I agree that Huckabee can talk a good game. That is, afterall what he does as a Preacher and that is what he is banking on. However, his actual policies leave much to be desired. I was reading over his economic policies and they are presented, as one would expect, to show how the citizen benefits. They sound fantastic but when you flip those policies around and view them from a Huckabee Administration point of view, you have problems. For example, he wants to eliminate all capital gains, alternative minimum, income, estate, gift and other taxes.

Sounds great! The problem: By doing so, a Huckabee Administration loses HUGE amounts of tax revenue every year. How does he expect to maintain current spending on Government programs, expand the military and defense budgets and eliminate a huge portion of Government tax revenue at the same time? The answer: Its virtually impossible to do. The Government costs to expand the military and defense alone are staggering and will reach well into the trillions of dollars. He is going to have to eliminate many Government funded social programs and print more money to do it. This will increase price inflation dramatically which is why I think he is in favor of a consumtion tax. He knows that his prices will increase inflation and his Administration will attempt to catch those lost revenues on the back end. It is my opinion that a Huckabee Administration is the worst thing that could happen to the United States economically and socially.

One more time folks. The republicans are fighting an up hill battle, when they are trying to win the presidency with only 20% of the country supporting any of their tickets.

We have got to stop allowing these media fools, to continue to tell us that we are going to have problems with these clowns running on the republican ticket, that even they don't want to support.

Any one of the democrats running for office would beat the hell out of any one of these people and these cheap polls you all give so much allegiance to are lying and I just don't understand why it is folks continue to base them on anything but cheap right wing continued Lie's and distortions of fact. They do it because they know you all run with the crap and get all scared and bothered about which democrat can take on the republicans, when you should know any one of the dems can win.

I just don't know when people will start to see this mess for what it is and stop allowing this right wing media to tell you anything about this election process. All we need to do is exactly what the good folks in Iowa did today and come out swinging in numbers so massive, they can't lie about it anymore.

We hold the cards to who will go to the white house folks and because of that knowledge, understanding and support of one and other, we have made it even more difficult for these fools to steal our election unless they come up with a new strategy other then screwing over the minority votes in this country.

They are going to have a difficult time with all of us because it will do them no good to steal the black votes, when just as many white Americans are voting the same way and many of these people used to vote republican and that is scaring the hell out of these folks.

We are beating these bastards at their own game.

My google flag went off. John Amato is 8 inches?! Holy Huckabee! ;)

If you love Huckabee, then you'll love his campaign chairman Ed Rollins

Huckabee reminds me of someone.

Well scratch Leno getting "special permission" according to a strike blog he DIDN'T. Or at least he didn't have permission to do a monologue, which he clearly did from cue cards anyway. That was a rumor that looks to have been planted by NBC.

Who knows the deal with Steward and Colbert? I guess we'll get more details when we get 'em...

Awesome stats from Kos--

Iowa Total Voter Turnout (approximate)
356,000

Percentage of total vote

24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)

oh poster@52, you don't know history! regan crushed the USSR with his pinky finger!

Great image of the union-busting rapture bunny

Jay Leno has more to lose on this issue than Huckabee.

Huckabee is not in show biz, he wants to be on TV and beeing on Leno is a good way to exposure himself and not over-spend like Mitt

Leno has been in show biz for decades, he is the one who should get the bad rap about crossing the picket line. Huckabee probably isn't well informed about the strike and not know why they striking in the first place.

Even as a Liberal, I am objective enough to state that Huckabee did a great job on Leno, Mitt Romney would never be able to pull that off on a nightly talk show, Mitt is too fake.

Fil @ 57:

Leno has been in show biz for decades, he is the one who should get the bad rap about crossing the picket line. Huckabee probably isn't well informed about the strike and not know why they striking in the first place.

Well, for such a compassionate christian man, Mr. Fuckabee doesn't give a rats ass about something like the writer's strike. It is not like it takes, what, 10 minute briefing to find out about what is going on with the strike.

And this jackass wants to be President? Such is the level of entitlement of these "compassionate" conservatives, eh?

19....you don't sound much like a Dem. You sound like a troll. Yes, your insane preacher, killer paroling, alleging Pakistan is a huge illegal-immigration-threat-posing, being gay is a choice, women need to give me babies and make me food, preacher....is doing....um....well really, I don't think it's cause for anyone to celebrate. It's a sad day in America when such a wackjob can get so far. It might make for good fodder if he is to get to the general election (which he won't because of the Romneybot) but that this man is so well-regarded does not reflect well on America. Yes, you've earned your check trolling now. Go to bed.

Ryan @ 39:

Love Street @ 7:

Why in God's name to us women have to always be "sexy" to be acknowledged? Why the D-cup mention? Maybe you're just great at blogging or photoshopping or whatever. I am so sick of this over sexualizing. Why don't we mention what size undies John Amato wears? If he has 8 inches of manliness, is he more legit? It's always been a man's world and today's women willingly fall right into the trap. If you can't beat em', join em' I guess. I've had it up to my nips of this kind of thing!

haha, calm down. somebody didn't get asked to prom...

Shut up, asshole.

"President Huckabee", a name like that, my God, how embarrassing. I assume it's the evangelicals who are throwing their weight behind this guy, and of course we know how horrible their judgement is when it comes to picking candidates. I truly wish they'd stay home and leave the voting up to people who are better judges of character.

I'm glad Iowa republicans were smart enough to give 3rd place to a guy who said he doesnt really have any passion for politics or a desire to be president.

Bravo. Bravo.

/sarcasm

i get my online weather from a site called wunderground dot com (w=weather + underground). yesterday afternoon i was surfing there and the only thing of note on the map was a big honkin storm just off the nw coast. i read their weather bloggers a little and saw many warning of a cat 2 style storm with another one right behind it. there was quite a bit of info about blizzard conditions, travel problems and lots of wind and rain. i was curious to see what some of the regular teevee news guys were saying about it and one after the other i saw the same little cartoon sunshine and cloud with predictions of showers and "snow in the higher elevations".
are those weather guys alarmists or are these other guys totally asleep?
it reminded me so much of the recent fires in san diego, i could hear my neighbors tv tuned to the local stations ALL day so he could tell what the hell is going on. i go to those same stations' web-sites and they ALL have little cartoon pictures of a bloom of fire here and there. it gave no idea of the actual perimeter and had real scanty info handed out in bits...to keep you just scared enough to keep watching all day longggggg.
i scratched around and found the s.d. co. emergency page and found maps and real info that i could us to tell my neighbors that they could turn off the telly and go surfing.
if i can find it so quickly why can't the teevee weather and news guys?
seems they want to keep you just informed enough so you'll hang on every work and suffer through every commercial so maybe you can glean enough info to save your own ass if need be.
those weather bits in seattle, portland and vancouver pretty much supplied no info--heck maybe by now they have noticed the storm and are reporting on it now so the traveler can listen to the reports while he is stranded.

TC @ 61:

19....you don't sound much like a Dem. You sound like a troll. Yes, your insane preacher, killer paroling, alleging Pakistan is a huge illegal-immigration-threat-posing, being gay is a choice, women need to give me babies and make me food, preacher....is doing....um....well really, I don't think it's cause for anyone to celebrate. It's a sad day in America when such a wackjob can get so far. It might make for good fodder if he is to get to the general election (which he won't because of the Romneybot) but that this man is so well-regarded does not reflect well on America. Yes, you've earned your check trolling now. Go to bed.

Sounds like another of the reasons Romney is toast. Too aligned with the Bush and Rove clan. I got a good night's sleep. Too bad for you.

kravitz @ 19:

Huck was superb on Leno. Whomever got him on that show is either a genius, or knows how to spread walking around money on the ministers at GE/Peacock. (And who could that be?) The line that I think helped him win - people would rather vote for the guy they work with than the guy who fired him.

Oh great, another "guy the American people would rather have a beer with". Aside from the blatant false parallelism of that analogy (if you got fired, then you don't work with any guys, do you?), I am amazed by the ability of the American people to be convinced by these smooth-talking yokels that the average Joe Schmoe (which GWB certainly was, but Mike Huckabee, mind you, is NOT) is the one who will make the best president. Isn't it time we set the bar a little higher for the single most powerful person in the country?

Love Street @ 7:

Why in God's name to us women have to always be "sexy" to be acknowledged? Why the D-cup mention? Maybe you're just great at blogging or photoshopping or whatever. I am so sick of this over sexualizing. Why don't we mention what size undies John Amato wears? If he has 8 inches of manliness, is he more legit? It's always been a man's world and today's women willingly fall right into the trap. If you can't beat em', join em' I guess. I've had it up to my nips of this kind of thing!

Smart is sexy. That you take 'sexy' to be representative of a male-dominated, oppressive society or an automatic sellout suggests you're a prisoner of the very mindset you're denouncing - that 'sexy' only fits a narrow definition that includes net porn and objectification of women.

Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of moments where my intellect relocates below my belt-line. But I count my blessings in that my world also includes quite a few women who are smart and sexy ... and that latter appelation is because of their intellect, not their bustline.

A couple? Why stop at two? Corrente has Leah, Xan, CD, and Sarah...

Grrr. Sorry about the muffed tags.

Daily Reading pt 1...

Obama wins Iowa on Democratic side (probably by about 7 + % points, which is bragging rights territory). Edwards Appears to Squeak Past Clinton for Second Place. In the Battle of the Campaign Narratives, "Change" Thumped "Experience." And Edwards Carried Nearly a Third of the Vote with a Distinctive "Populist" Message, Which is Also "Change."
- http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080104/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc;_ylt=AjgreEOr1...

Edwards Reconsidered--Norman Solomon - http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2008-01-03-10-39-05-news.php
"Reasons for a Kucinich vote remain. The caucuses and primaries are a time to make a clear statement about what we believe in -- and to signal a choice for the best available candidate. Ironically, history may show that the person who did the most to undermine such reasoning for a Dennis Kucinich vote at the start of 2008 was... Dennis Kucinich....There's no reason to support Obama over Edwards on Kucinich's say-so. And now, I can't think of reasons good enough to support Kucinich rather than Edwards in the weeks ahead."

Trees absorbing less CO2 as world warms, study finds - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/03/climatechange.carbonem...
The ability of forests to soak up carbon dioxide is weakening, according to an analysis of two decades of data from more than 30 sites. The finding is crucial, because it means that more CO2 we release will end up affecting the climate in the atmosphere rather than being locked away in trees or soil. The results may partly explain recent studies suggesting that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing faster than expected. If higher temperatures mean less carbon is soaked up by plants and microbes, global warming will accelerate.
How stupid are deniers??? Well, a 5 year old can deduce that less trees = more C02 in atmosphere not being absorbed, higher temperatures for 2months longer per year across world = less freshwater stores as they evaporate faster, less water = less tree growth/healthy tree sustainablility
How stupid are global warming deniers? Well everyday, with each new fact...you decide....

Fuel Cell That Uses Bacteria To Generate Electricity - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103101137.htm
Researchers at the Biodesign Institute are using the tiniest organisms on the planet 'bacteria' as a viable option to make electricity. "We can use any kind of waste, such as sewage or pig manure, and the microbial fuel cell will generate electrical energy" Unlike conventional fuel cells that rely on hydrogen gas as a fuel source, the microbial fuel cell can handle a variety of water-based organic fuels.

Peter Michaelson: How Conformity Trumps Action on Global Warming - http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1487
Before we get meaningful global warming prevention, we need a program of national conformity eradication in which the agent of progress is self-knowledge.

Selfish capitalism is bad for our mental health - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2234337,00.html
By far the most significant consequence of "selfish capitalism" has been a startling increase in the incidence of mental illness in both children and adults since the 1970s. Add to this the astonishing fact that citizens of Selfish Capitalist, English-speaking nations (which tend to be one and the same) are twice as likely to suffer mental illness as those from mainland western Europe, which is largely Unselfish Capitalist in its political economy.

ArtiseLife @ 30:

CD @ 16:

Huckabee crossed a picket line.

Don't let anyone forget this.

And Jon Stewart is going to do the same thing. They say it's to protect the other employees of the show. I say it's union busting and it pisses me off!!

------------------------------------
all of these guys should stay out as long as it takes. that protecting the jobs of others is bullshit.
when any large group strikes it has an effect on others.
i didn't watch conan or dave either--never watch leno--but even if they have a deal with their own writers or whatever--it smells and they should all honor the strike.
i'm honestly hurt and confused by letterman, conan and jon stewart.

Nobody Asked Me, But...

10 for '08

bob @ 74:

Hey! Where did all the Ronbots go?

They're busy in NH spray painting landmarks and buildings.

some1 @ 54:

Barrett D @ 53:

oh poster@52,

have you seen this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430&q=secret+governments&total=3147&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

--------------------------------
thanks for that vid.

And they're so modest too. . .

BigTallMatt @ 73:

kravitz @ 19:

Huck was superb on Leno. Whomever got him on that show is either a genius, or knows how to spread walking around money on the ministers at GE/Peacock. (And who could that be?) The line that I think helped him win - people would rather vote for the guy they work with than the guy who fired him.

Oh great, another "guy the American people would rather have a beer with". Aside from the blatant false parallelism of that analogy (if you got fired, then you don't work with any guys, do you?), I am amazed by the ability of the American people to be convinced by these smooth-talking yokels that the average Joe Schmoe (which GWB certainly was, but Mike Huckabee, mind you, is NOT) is the one who will make the best president. Isn't it time we set the bar a little higher for the single most powerful person in the country?

Did you see the story in the NYT where Huck & HairBot discussed Edward's 'two Americas' comment. And did you notice Romney was in the back of a limo. Hair perfect. Saying 'I don't think there are Two Americas.' Because he doesn't even see the other one. More hair gel, please.

xxx @ 90:

From David Letterman's Wrap up of the Iowa Caucuses last night:

"6:00 PM: Mike Huckabee crosses picket lines and says he plans to cross more in the future."

He wasted no time too. Guess who was on the Craig Ferguson show just last night...

Thanks for the link, BlueGal!

I really appreciate it and am glad to be part of a growing cadre of female bloggers!

ArtiseLife @ 30:

CD @ 16:

Huckabee crossed a picket line.

Don't let anyone forget this.

And Jon Stewart is going to do the same thing. They say it's to protect the other employees of the show. I say it's union busting and it pisses me off!!

Incase you forget there's people who are not writers and depend on their jobs with these shows who don't belong to a union. If you were one of these people you sure as hell wouldn't be crying about the picket line being crossed would you?

Two months is long enough, it's time for both sides to grow up and resolve this.

thanks for that vid.

you are most welcome.
I plan to write to Bill Moyers and ask he would consider posting it on his journal, he told the truth in 80's and still telling the truth now. i watched this old one from him today
NOW SHOWING:
A World of Ideas
E. L. Doctorow (1988)
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/archives/archives.php

Talcott @ 97:

bob @ 88:

StirFry @ 87:

bob @ 74:
They're busy in NH spray painting landmarks and buildings.

Funny how they were all over C&L last night but few to be found this morning.

Which goes to show many C&L readers support Ron Paul. It wasn't as good a night as some had hoped. However considering

whom his message is aimed at, with a media black out up until the Tea Party 10% is very good.

WTF are you talking about? You got TEN FUCKING PERCENT OF 25% OF THE TOTAL VOTE. Get it? Nobody is buying your Ron Paul bullshit. How does two or three Ronbots hijacking threads equate to LOTS OF C&L readers being dumbass lying libertarians?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/oswald/

"Oswald's ghost" Directed by Robert Stone
will be on PBS Monday, January 14, 2008

and I hope one of you would post it somewhere for those of us who are not able to watch it live

Something about the "deliberation timeline since 2003" isn't adding up with the WH-DoJ-CIA explanation for the CIA tape destruction.

Problem 1: Doubts About Deliberations

Let's recall the legal environment in 2003: Lawyers appearing on PBS Frontline report that Geneva was considered quaint; that the Prisoners could be treated harshly; and the JAGs were getting ignored. This hardly sends a signal that there was anyone to engage in any serious deliberations. If there were any deliberations who -- other than the JAGs and those viewing Geneva as quaint -- was in any position to delay a decision? This seems fanciful. At best, the WH-DoJ-CIA-DoD civilian lawyers -- non-JAGs -- were looking for an excuse to silence anyone.

It's absurd to argue that the WH-DoJ-CIA-DoD legal counsel were "deliberating" for two years on legal issues related to prisoner of war. No they weren't. These lawyers spent no time considering the legality of invading Iraq without an imminent threat; yet, they want us to believe they spent two years talking about a single tape?!? That defies reason. If true, this would ask us to believe something absurd: That the WH-DoJ-CIA-DoD legal counsel spent more time talking about a single video tape than they did discussing the legality of the invasion of Iraq after 2001, until the actual invasion in 2003. That makes no sense.

Problem 2: US Government Legal Counsel Interest in Expanding Deliberation Window

This problem relates to privilege of "pre-decision counsel deliberations" or "deliberative shield". An example of this was raised in the US Atty firing e-mails. Supposedly, the CIA-WH-DoJ were involved in "deliberations" after the CIA IG finished its investigation in 2003. This would have us belive the "decision" to destroy the tape wasn't finalized until 2005.

However, what if the decision and tape destruction occurred in 2003, and the objective wasn't to decide anything in 2005, but to pretend they were deliberating for two years. This would extend the window of deliberations another 24 months. Recall, "deliberations" are shielded.

Problem 3: What Suddenly Changed in 2005?

Put aside the above, and consider the simple issue: Suppose the CIA-DoJ-WH-DoD legal counsel were "deliberating" for two years, and "unable" to reach a decision. This would ask us to believe that they were "confused" and there was no "heavy decision maker" and there was nobody who would say, "We need to resolve this." IMagine that: For two years the lawyers were supposedly going back and forth, unable to make a decision, confused.

Fine, let accept that as a possibility. We would have to consider: "What suddenly changed in 2005 that required the tape-decision to be made; and for this "back and forth for two years" to suddenly changed? Again, the answer is: Nothing appears to have changed, other than something else we don't understand by design. Again, this falls all to conveniently in the "deliberative window" that is shielded. Far too convenient.

Most Likely

Put aside the convoluted non-sense above, let's turn the US government position on its head: There's no reason to believe anything they've told us from the date of the destruction, or whether there were deliberations, or whether the decision was made in 2003 or 2005.

Most likely the decision to destroy the tapes (plural) was made well before 2005; but legal counsel would like to shield something (TBD) between 2003 and 2005. Possibly this evidence relates to rendition-related-tapes which contractors and others would have kept to show that they were adequately transporting the right people. Recall, we've seen pictures of prisoners getting moved with ear protection on. Is it not within the scope of possibility that there are rendition-related videos of the contractors transporting prisoners from Canada, into Scotland, then to Poland-Czechoslovakia-Egypt-Syria and beyond?

Most likely, the decision to destroy the tapes was made early, and there are many e-mails after this decision which could be reviewed by the court because they are post-deliberative. Yet, if the "rendition videos" are a state secret, why would someone fabricate a timeline to extent the deliberations; would a "state secret" not shield this? Indeed, if it were a bonafide state secret. It appears legal counsel believed that there was sufficient doubt about something that the [a] deliberative protection; and [b] state secret claim would not shield something after a specific date.

Indeed, it appears despite the JAG's getting stonewalled, something changed: And that appears to be the real concern that the ICC would have a legal basis to not just review the tape, but make adverse inferences about the tapes existence. Imagine that: Potential war crimes evidence, and the WH-DoJ-CIA-DoD staff counsel "can't decide" whether they should keep it or not. That's stunning. The answer to competent counsel appears to have been the opposite: "We need to retain this evidence because the ICC, as the JAGs warned us, would want to look at this."

Unclear

Using the above theory, we have to ask a number of questions:

- Is there any evidence the tape was, in fact, destroyed in 2005 and not earlier?

- Why did it take longer for the WH-DoJ-CIA legal counsel to "review" the tape destruction arguments than the issues with the Iraq invasion-arguments?

- Why should we believe it took the US government legal community two years to deliberate a single tape; but they apparently rubber stamped a decision to allegedly invade Iraq without an imminent threat, in violation of Geneva?

- What suddenly changed -- regardless the tape destruction date -- for the legal counsel to move from [a] we're not sure whether to retain it or not; to [b] we need to support the decision to destroy the tape?

= Was the tape destroyed in 2003, and the legal counsel spent two years pretending to have deliberations, with the intent of creating a "deliberative smokescreen"?

- Why should anyone believe that there was "confusion" or anyone in the US government legal community with any "clout" to "question" whether or not this tape should or should not be kept?

- What changed after 2001 for the US government legal counsel to have the inconsistent approach to legal issues: [a] little regard for GEneva, evidence or imminent threat in re Iraq; and no regard for the Geneva constraints on US as a detaining power; but then the contrasting position [b] of "concern" for something to retain a single tape?

- Why, despite no apparent interest in the Afghan boxcar deaths, did US legal counsel have a concern about a "tape"?

- Why, despite the Commission lack of interest in a particular building demolition, are we to believe that another tape of a single prisoner did get attention and concern for two years?

Overall

This CIA tape destruction-explanation smells. The timing, the timelines, and the legal counsel's explanations are at odds with the US government's stated positions. It defies reason to believe that there was a serious deliberation about a tape; yet no interest in larger legal issues in re unlawful war in Iraq or larger ICC-interest areas.

Most likely, legal counsel was well aware the tape should ICC-interest areas; fatally revealed details of the rendition program; there are likely other tapes which the rendition contractors still posses; and the "deliberative window since 2003" is an artificial shield to hide other lines of evidence, programs, discussion, e-mails, and other things TBD. There is no reason to believe the tape was destroyed on a specific date; or that there were real deliberations between 2003 and 2005.

The public needs the following:
- A good reason to believe the tape was destroyed on a specific date;
- A good reason to believe that there were real deliberations between 2003 and 2005;
- A good reason to believe that legal counsel were making arguments related to GEneva that were outweighing the larger OVP-DoJ legal opinions to ignore Geneva.

It does not appear the above exist, are real, or can be created or established. Rather, the opposite appears more supportable:

- There is no good reason to believe the tape was destroyed on a specific date; or that the backup tapes of other interrogations or rendition-related transfers have been destroyed;
- There is no good reason to believe that there were real deliberations between 2003 and 2005; rather, there were too many lines of evidence suggesting there were no real legal arguments opposing those who viewed Geneva as quaint;
- There is no good reason to believe that legal counsel were making arguments related to GEneva that were outweighing the larger OVP-DoJ legal opinions to ignore Geneva.

Judgments

It is a red herring that a CIA tape was or was not destroyed in 2003 or 2005. There still exist back-up tapes which the FOIA court has been denied. Members of Congress and their staff have access to details of these tapes, but have been provided this information on a condition of secrecy.

This promise of secrecy, because it allegedly relates to allegations of illegal activity related to the underlying evidence and subject of that agreement, is not enforceable. Congressional staff counsel well know, or should know, that any agreement between Congress and the Executive Branch to hide this information is not enforceable; but relies on allegedly frivolous legal arguments which would attach to DoJ-WH-OVP-CIA-DoD and Congressional staff counsel the original alleged war crimes.

Legal counsel working for DoJ-DoD-CIA-OVP-WH have a substantial, and allegedly fraudulent interest to pretend there were deliberations to shield things that would otherwise not be shielded. There is important information in the 2003-2005 window which the ICC, public, and war crimes prosecutors need to review; and the court cannot credibly recognize a claims of "deliberative privilege."

Legal counsel well know the issues of evidence in re these tapes relate to alleged war crimes. This concern was substantially behind the WH-DoJ-CIA-DoD-OVP staff counsel inputs to Congress on the MCA language granting US funds to all US persons appearing before international tribunals, including the ICC.