Continue reading »

I try not to post when I'm upset about something because I prefer to write semi-reasoned analysis instead of crazed emotional heaving. But there comes a time when crazed emotional heaving is a perfectly rational thing to do. We are now in one of those times.

Why am I so freaked out, you ask? Because I think the GOP is really, really, really going to let the United States default. They've figured out that holding the debt ceiling hostage is the perfect way to achieve all of their ideological goals. This is their big shot to drown government in a bathtub and they are not going to miss it. And the only reason they can get away with this is because our supposed Democratic "leadership" does not have the guts to come right out and say that the Republicans are threatening to destroy the economy unless they get everything they want. You know that things have gotten bad when David Frum actually wishes Obama would be a more forceful in standing up to the GOP:

“Call me naive,” President Obama invited viewers of today’s press conference.

Mr. President, invitation accepted: Unless that performance today conceals some unimagined occult plan, yes, you are naive.

Congressional Republicans have refused to raise the debt limit unless the Obama Administration agrees to large and immediate spending cuts. They have their finger on the nuclear button and are threatening to detonate unless they get their way. It seems crazy that they would actually do it, but congressional Republicans have done a pretty good job of convincing the Administration (if not yet the financial markets) that they just might do it.

Obama has responded by entering into negotiations with the congressional Republicans. These negotiations have not gone well, largely because Republicans are united upon an all-spending-cuts, no-tax-increases approach to deficit reduction.

As reported today on the nationally broadcast Ed Shultz Show part of the Jones Radio Network, former U.S. Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter declared that the Bush administration helped subvert and manipulate the recent heralded election in Iraq. According to Ritter, who made the original charges in a joint appearance with journalist Dahr Jamil in Washington state, the Bush administration was determined to control the outcome of the Iraq vote at all costs. "The U.S.cooked the election in Iraq," claimed Ritter. Ritter went on to explain how the victory of the Shia was a forgone conclusion to Administration members.What wasn't a foregone conclusion was the percentage of victory. A majority victory of the Shia would give them control of the Parliament and under current Iraqi law allow the Iranian-influenced Mullahs to draw up the new Constitution. read on

The Raw Story interviewed Ritter and has more.

Andrea Mitchell steps in it again: (+ defends Bob Woodward)

Imus got wind of her flopping around about her previous statements regarding Joseph and Valerie Wilson on his show 11/12, so he had her back on to clarify. She was fumbling and stumbling throughout the segment. It's "hard work" to carry water for the administration. Whether you like him or not, Don has one of the only shows that is able to get politicians and journalists on and he will ask them some tough questions that other outlets will not. Do you think Chris Matthews would hold her up to any kind of scrutiny?

Download | play -WMP low res-(it's really about the audio) Download | play -QT later

Her answers were ridiculous and she almost steps in it again as Imus asks her about this exchange.

Murray: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

Mitchell: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.

(Rough transcript. Anyone want to write a transcript?)

Imus: It seems unclear what you said and perhaps you can clear it up about what you said back in Oct. of 2003---

Mitchell: I have been trying to figure out "what-the-heck" I was talking about, frankly. There is confusion because I am confused.

Imus: So when you told Alan Murray of CNBC, that it was widely known that his wife worked for the CIA-(interruption)--what were you drunk?

Mitchell: I don't even remember the deal...

(later)

Imus: His question seems plain...Imus: What this suggests to me is that you knew she worked at the CIA, but you didn't know what she did there. Isn't that fair-did you know that?

Mitchell-(garbled)

Imus: Why did you say that Andrea?

Mitchell: I messed up...(later)

Imus: Russert was a little short with me---almost like he was trying to hide something....

Imus laughing: I realized-well this is an unfair thing to say, I was gonna say- all you folks in Washington are all in bed with one another, but that would be an awful thing to say....

I can't agree with you more on that point. Listen to Andrea discuss Booby. She says Bob Woodward is a great journalist who made one "teenie-weenie" mistake. Notice she spews the beltway company line that they told him casually about Valerie and says that it wasn't "something important until it became important." I agree with Imus, she is drunk.

Andrea: Bob Woodward is a terrific reporter, there is no one like Bob Woodward. He has done extraordinary work---(later) If people make one mistake in the course of a thirty five year career when they have been bullet proof---

Then she says that we don't know if Libby is lying. I'm too tired to go on.....

AG REPORT Tapped
Spencer Ackerman has an article out on recently released documents that give us the military's lawyer's view of U.S. interrogation policy:

The JAGs were commenting on the report of a Pentagon working group, convened in January 2003, to review interrogation policy changes. But a common theme in their memos is the concern that the legal rationales employed by the working group were imported wholesale from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)--whose writing on the question of torture was memorably described by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as "perhaps the most clearly legally erroneous opinion I have ever read." (What the Justice Department lawyers actually gave to the Defense Department remains, inexplicably, classified, despite months of congressional demands.)

Major General Thomas Romig, the Army JAG, essentially concurred. He denounced OLC's central contention--that any law restricting the president's ability to wage war is unconstitutional--writing caustically: "I question whether this theory would ultimately prevail in either the U.S. courts or in any international forum. ... This view runs contrary to the historic position taken by the United States Government concerning such laws and, in our opinion, could adversely impact DOD interests worldwide."

Brigadier General Kevin Sandkuhler, the Marine JAG, was more specific about how adopting OLC's argument would harm the military:

Spencer Ackerman has an article out on recently released documents that give us the military's lawyer's view of U.S. interrogation policy:

The JAGs were commenting on the report of a Pentagon working group, convened in January 2003, to review interrogation policy changes. But a common theme in their memos is the concern that the legal rationales employed by the working group were imported wholesale from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)--whose writing on the question of torture was memorably described by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as "perhaps the most clearly legally erroneous opinion I have ever read." (What the Justice Department lawyers actually gave to the Defense Department remains, inexplicably, classified, despite months of congressional demands.)

Major General Thomas Romig, the Army JAG, essentially concurred. He denounced OLC's central contention--that any law restricting the president's ability to wage war is unconstitutional--writing caustically: "I question whether this theory would ultimately prevail in either the U.S. courts or in any international forum. ... This view runs contrary to the historic position taken by the United States Government concerning such laws and, in our opinion, could adversely impact DOD interests worldwide."

Brigadier General Kevin Sandkuhler, the Marine JAG, was more specific about how adopting OLC's argument would harm the military: "Comprehensive protection is lacking for DOD personnel who may be tried by other nations and/or international bodies for violations of international law."

"U.S. Armed Forces are continuously trained to take the legal and moral 'high road' in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate," wrote the Air Force's deputy JAG, Major General Jack Rives. "Approving exceptional interrogation techniques may be seen as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. Armed Forces have heretofore been trained are unlawful." Sandkuhler starkly warned about a breakdown in uniformed "pride, discipline and self-respect."

You can see the memos themselves here and Marty Lederman has further commentary on the subject.

Th "Comprehensive protection is lacking for DOD personnel who may be tried by other nations and/or international bodies for violations of international law."

"U.S. Armed Forces are continuously trained to take the legal and moral 'high road' in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate," wrote the Air Force's deputy JAG, Major General Jack Rives. "Approving exceptional interrogation techniques may be seen as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. Armed Forces have heretofore been trained are unlawful." Sandkuhler starkly warned about a breakdown in uniformed "pride, discipline and self-respect."

You can see the memos themselves here and Marty Lederman has further commentary on the subject.

Th. They are written by JAGs from the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines. As Senator Graham put it on Monday, these folks "are not from the ACLU. These are not from people who are soft on terrorism, who want to coddle foreign terrorists. These are all professional military lawyers who have dedicated their lives, with 20-plus year careers, to serving the men and women in uniform and protecting their Nation. They were giving a warning shot across the bow of the policymakers that there are certain corners you cannot afford to cut because you will wind up meeting yourself."

It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

Department of "Huh?" Brad DeLong
The U.S. government doesn't already offer protection to foreign diplomats in Iraq? Why not?
WSJ.com - U.S. May Offer Protection To Foreign Diplomats in Iraqe memos are extraordinary. They are written by JAGs from the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines. As Senator Graham put it on Monday, these folks "are not from the ACLU. These are not from people who are soft on terrorism, who want to coddle foreign terrorists. These are all professional military lawyers who have dedicated their lives, with 20-plus year careers, to serving the men and women in uniform and protecting their Nation. They were giving a warning shot across the bow of the policymakers that there are certain corners you cannot afford to cut because you will wind up meeting yourself."

It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

Mismanagement by Objective Eyewitness Muse

Why am I not surprised that the Bush Administration has discovered 22 “ineffective” federal initiatives that they want eliminated and that among these programs’ intended beneficiaries are preschool children, displaced workers, at-risk youth, migrant agriculture workers, low-income college students, the disabled and families that cannot afford housing. After all, if anybody deserves to feel the pinch, it’s a grimy lot like that. Read More

JAG Memos Revealed Discourse.net

Marty Lederman has an important post about the torture scandal, The Heroes of the Pentagon's Interrogation Scandal -- Finally, the JAG Memos
. As Marty says, "These memos reveal the JAGs as the real heroes of this story."

The memos are extraordinary. They are written by JAGs from the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines. As Senator Graham put it on Monday, these folks "are not from the ACLU. These are not from people who are soft on terrorism, who want to coddle foreign terrorists. These are all professional military lawyers who have dedicated their lives, with 20-plus year careers, to serving the men and women in uniform and protecting their Nation. They were giving a warning shot across the bow of the policymakers that there are certain corners you cannot afford to cut because you will wind up meeting yourself."
It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

In particular, these memos eloquently warn of the grave harms that could result from such a radical shift in policies and legal understandings--harms not only to the prospects for nation's efforts to stop terrorism, but also to military interrogators and officers who could face domestic and international prosecution for engaging in such conduct, and, most importantly, to U.S. forces who are themselves detained in this and future conflicts.

He's also got the text of six key JAG memos. Essential reading.

It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

In particular, these memos eloquently warn of the grave harms that could result from such a radical shift in policies and legal understandings--harms not only to the prospects for nation's efforts to stop terrorism, but also to military interrogators and officers who could face domestic and international prosecution for engaging in such conduct, and, most importantly, to U.S. forces who are themselves detained in this and future conflicts.

He's also got the text of six key JAG memos. Essential reading.

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials..read on.

Let's try to play the Ken Mehlman spin game. How can we change the word "secret" into something else. How about....

Mehlman: (S) could have meant anything Tim, I mean it could have meant don't get (S)weat on the report, or it's a pretty (S)weet report, or it's a (S)pecial report Tim, but the bottom line here is that this new information by Mr. Pincus absolutely, unequivocally and irrevocably clears Karl Rove of any wrong doing.

Russert: It says (S) for secret Ken.

Mehlman: If that's what you think it says Tim, but not to me and not to the American people.

"It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger"

You can speculate on what Mehlman will say about that.

Kos says: No rest for Rove: Well, Roberts bought Rove all of what, 24 hours?

Crime and Punishment Billmon

"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
July 18, 2005

Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Stephen Hadley announced today the appointment of Elliott Abrams as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy. . ."

Executive Office of the President
Personnel Announcement
February 2, 2005

The Board concluded . . . that Abrams had engaged in "dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation" by giving false (but unsworn) testimony to three congressional committees regarding the role of the United States government in what has become known as the Iran-Contra Affair. Following Abrams' conviction, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal charges arising out of his congressional testimony, President Bush granted him a full and unconditional pardon."

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
In re Elliott Abrams, Respondent
February 5, 1997

________________________
Sorry Elliott, but you know how it is: The president is a man of his word. And he didn't make any exception for pardoned criminals.

Don't forget to turn in your ID badge on the way out.

[ed note: couple other guys who might want to look for other work if Dear Leader really means it...BWA HAHAHAHA
John Poindexter
Otto Reich