We at C&L enjoy reading right wing blogs as well as left. I find some of the arguments and stories interesting and informed as are blogs on the left. Some of it is nonsense, but that is inherent in the blogosphere.. There's a debate on "littlegreenfootballs"(that I enjoy reading) about Exit Polls: Direct Reports from Dem Operatives that describes a report form American Spector. To sum it up, the left wing bloggers are at fault for the exit polls. There are many good posts about oversampling of women, and the like. Here is an interesting post to counter some of the charges:

I watch FOX during the night as I read these posts.

FOX admitted later in the evening that they had been trusting the exit polls that they and all the networks had gotten from the COMPANY THEY HIRED TO DO THEM. They admitted they had been reluctant to call states going Bush earlier because of the exit poll results they had received earlier. They were not basing this on blogs but the exit polls they paid for.

All the networks had gotten together and chosen ONE COMPANY to do the exit polls.

Brit Hume on FOX even joked about asking for their money back.

According to a Washington lobbyist with knowledge of the numbers, the numbers were packaged together so as to appear to be exit poll results. They were then scrubbed through several sources to land in the lap of sympathetic bloggers who these operatives believed would put the numbers up with little question.
So how does the link with the above? Company insider working with the Kerry camp?

Not everything is a Rather-Gate incident!

Voter Fraud alert:

FEAR AND LOATHING IN WEST PALM BEACH- part VII

This just in From Mark G. Apparently Republican operatives have gotten hold of Democratic phone lists and are posing as democrats, telling registered voters that their polling locations have changed! People who have already voted are reporting this now after cursing out the fraudulent caller!

DOWNLOADS: (1283)

PLAYS: (1292)

Embed

(h/t Michael.)

Well, well, well. Isn't this interesting:

WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency in 2004 hired outside contractors from the private security contractor Blackwater USA as part of a secret program to locate and assassinate top operatives of Al Qaeda, according to current and former government officials.

Executives from Blackwater, which has generated controversy because of its aggressive tactics in Iraq, helped the spy agency with planning, training and surveillance. The C.I.A. spent several million dollars on the program, which did not capture or kill any terrorist suspects.

The fact that the C.I.A. used an outside company for the program was a major reason that Leon E. Panetta, the new C.I.A. director, became alarmed and called an emergency meeting to tell Congress that the agency had withheld details of the program for seven years, the officials said.

It is unclear whether the C.I.A. had planned to use the contractors to capture or kill Qaeda operatives, or just to help with training and surveillance. American spy agencies have in recent years outsourced some highly controversial work, including the interrogation of prisoners. But government officials said that bringing outsiders into a program with lethal authority raised deep concerns about accountability in covert operations.

Officials said that the C.I.A. did not have a formal contract with Blackwater for this program but instead had individual agreements with top company officials, including the founder, Erik D. Prince, a politically connected former member of the Navy Seals and the heir to a family fortune. Blackwater’s work on the program actually ended years before Mr. Panetta took over the agency, after senior C.I.A. officials themselves questioned the wisdom of using outsiders in a targeted killing program.

The Seminal: Grassley brings the crazy...

Apoliticus: Top Five Campaign Mistakes

Mother Jones: George Bush, appeaser?

Submitted to a Candid World: Objection! Republican talking points and prior inconsistent statements

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: Rich Lowry has lot of s'plaining to do...Gibbs To Media: How about reality?...Facts are stupid things...WaPo scraping bottom...Lane violation...Shrill...Whiney, Self-Serving Crapola....The New Yorker thinks Savage is just misunderstood...Our liberal media...Lou, you're an as*hole but we'd still like to see your birth certificate...Here's ours!...Humungous Hypocrisy at The Atlantiic

So they're rolling out the heavy guns, hiding behind yet another astroturf front. I wonder why they're always hiding behind these fake grassroots organizations? Could it be they don't want people to know the kind of money the massive financial interests against health care reform are spending to stop it?

The new anti-health reform front group known as the Coalition to Protect Patients’ Rights, is being managed by the lobbying firm known as the DCI Group. After being contacted by ThinkProgress this afternoon about its sponsorship of CPPR’s press conference last week, DCI Group staffers acknowledged that they coordinate PR for the front group. Not be confused with Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, another front group opposing health reform, CPPR has been organizing lobbying efforts against health reform and publishing op-eds across the country with misinformation about the public option.

Tom Synhorst, a former staffer to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Bob Dole, joined fellow right-wing operatives Doug Goodyear and Tim Hyde to form DCI Group in 1996. The firm quickly flourished working for the tobacco industry, coordinating a sophisticated astroturf campaign to build public opposition to tobacco regulations. Ironically, before helping to manage this “patients’ rights” campaign, DCI founded “Smokers’ Rights” groups across the country for the tobacco lobby. Indeed, DCI has specialized in manufacturing “grassroots” support — using telemarketers, PR events, and letter writing campaigns — to achieve policy results for narrow corporate interests:

– The DCI Group was retained by the pharmaceutical industry to whip up public opposition against House legislation that would permit the reimportation of FDA-approved drugs from Canada and elsewhere. [Washington Monthly, December/2003]

– The DCI Group worked with Republicans to form various “grassroots” front-groups to amplify President Bush’s call to privatize Social Security. [Center for Media and Democracy, 3/18/05]

– Chris LaCivita, a former DCI Group staffer, took a lead role in organizing the Swift Boat Veterans campaign to smear John Kerry and his war record. [CommonDreams, 8/31/04]

– The DCI Group was behind spoof videos mocking Al Gore and global warming. The firm has been retained by ExxonMobil to lobby. [Wall Street Journal, 8/3/06; Exxon Secrets, accessed 7/28/09

While it is unclear who is funding this latest CPPR front group, DCI has in the past worked for health insurance companies. In 2002, the American Prospect reported that DCI had been hired by the Health Benefits Coalition, a trade association of for-profit HMOs trying to “thwart congressional action on the patients’ bill of rights."

A C&L reader passed this information on Sunday afternoon.

With Dick Cheney going on the offense to justify his torture legacy, now comes the news that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who gave false information that helped promote the war in Iraq because he did not want to be tortured, has committed suicide.

Andy Worthington:

The Arabic media is ablaze with the news that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the emir of an Afghan training camp — whose claim that Saddam Hussein had been involved in training al-Qaeda operatives in the use of chemical and biological weapons was used to justify the invasion of Iraq — has died in a Libyan jail. So far, however, the only English language report is on the Algerian website Ennahar Online, which reported that the Libyan newspaper Oea stated that al-Libi (aka Ali Abdul Hamid al-Fakheri) “was found dead of suicide in his cell,” and noted that the newspaper had reported the story “without specifying the date or method of suicide.”

--

In Egypt, he came up with the false allegation about connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that was used by President Bush in a speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, just days before Congress voted on a resolution authorizing the President to go to war against Iraq, in which, referring to the supposed threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, Bush said, “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases.”

Four months later, on February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same claim in his notorious speech to the UN Security Council, in an attempt to drum up support for the invasion. “I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to Al Qaeda,” Powell said, adding, “Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story.” As a Newsweek report in 2007 explained, Powell did not identify al-Libi by name, but CIA officials — and a Senate Intelligence Committee report — later confirmed that he was referring to al-Libi.

Al-Libi recanted his story in February 2004, when he was returned to the CIA’s custody, and explained, as Newsweek described it, that he told his debriefers that “he initially told his interrogators that he ‘knew nothing’ about ties between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden and he ‘had difficulty even coming up with a story’ about a relationship between the two.” The Newsweek report explained that “his answers displeased his interrogators — who then apparently subjected him to the mock burial. As al-Libi recounted, he was stuffed into a box less than 20 inches high. When the box was opened 17 hours later, al-Libi said he was given one final opportunity to ‘tell the truth.’ He was knocked to the floor and ‘punched for 15 minutes.’ It was only then that, al-Libi said, he made up the story about Iraqi weapons training.”

This is what happens when torture is used: False information is given to stop the madness and suffering.

The NY Times did a story about al-Libi's fabricated allegations:

The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.

The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons...read on

But Cheney wants to release memos when he's not in power and had the authority to do so to prove that torture is wonderful. The power to torture can not be handled by men and women. It corrupts and is immoral and nothing justifies it as a policy for America. And as the al-Libi example points out---it can help take a country to war.

DOWNLOADS: (1280)

PLAYS: (1834)

Embed

President Obama today:

On the one hand, we have very real enemies out there. And we rely on some very courageous people -- not just in our military, but also in the Central Intelligence Agency -- to help protect the American people. And they have to make some very difficult decisions because, as I mentioned yesterday, they are confronted with an enemy that doesn't have scruples, isn't constrained by Constitutions, is not constrained by legal niceties.

Having said that, the OLC memos that were released reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings. That's why I've discontinued those enhanced-interrogation programs. For those who carried out these operations within the four corners of legal opinions, or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate for them to be prosecuted. With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General, within the parameters of various laws. And I don't want to prejudge that.

As the New York Times notes, he went on to seemingly encourage Congress to get involved:

Mr. Obama, who has been saying that the nation should look ahead rather than focusing on the past, said he is “not suggesting” that a commission be established.

But in response to questions from reporters in the Oval Office, he said, “if and when there needs to be a further accounting,” he hoped that Congress would examine ways to obtain one “in a bipartisan fashion,” from people who are independent and therefore can build credibility with the public.

Obviously, Obama's not keen about this because he's focused on moving forward with his political agenda, and he's afraid a partisan fight over holding Republicans accountable for their lawbreaking during the Bush years will derail that.

In other words, it will take courage. We'll be watching to see how much he actually possesses.

George W. Bush has been exceedingly stingy when it comes to presidential pardons and commutations, issuing fewer than any modern president. But as Bush’s presidency winds down, there’s some talk about the president using his powers to help conceal some of the administration’s own transgressions.

As the administration wrestles with the cascade of petitions, some lawyers and law professors are raising a related question: Will Mr. Bush grant pre-emptive pardons to officials involved in controversial counterterrorism programs?

Such a pardon would reduce the risk that a future administration might undertake a criminal investigation of operatives or policy makers involved in programs that administration lawyers have said were legal but that critics say violated laws regarding torture and surveillance.

Some legal analysts said Mr. Bush might be reluctant to issue such pardons because they could be construed as an implicit admission of guilt. But several members of the conservative legal community in Washington said in interviews that they hoped Mr. Bush would issue such pardons — whether or not anyone made a specific request for one. They said people who carried out the president’s orders should not be exposed even to the risk of an investigation and expensive legal bills.

There are two angles to consider here: whether the White House would do this and whether the White House could do this.

On the prior, the Bush gang isn’t saying much. The NYT asked the White House about whether “pre-emptive pardons” — clearing people of legal responsibility before they even face charges — are on the table. The Times reported, “Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, would not say whether the administration was considering pre-emptive pardons, nor whether it would rule them out.”

On the latter, is this even a legal option? Does the president even have the authority to pardon someone who isn’t even facing criminal charges? Apparently, he can.

These are the top 10 Most Influential Political Pundits in America, according to the Telegraph UK. Sing along with me: "One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you guess which thing is not like the other..." The rest of the list is hardly comforting either: 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50

And this is the sad state of political dialogue in the US today. Digby continues:

I have long held that the reason so many people hate liberals in this country is because the right convinced them that all of those pictured above who are not right wing icons --- are liberal. No wonder they hate us. With the exception of Jon Stewart, they are all immense jackasses.

The list includes a few Democratic political operatives and a handful of intelligent liberals like Paul Krugman and Rachel Maddow who are listed at 48 and 50, but for the most part they are rich, mainstream gasbags and conservative dickheads.

I have no idea what criteria the Telegraph used to make these judgments (and they seem not to make any distinction between political operatives and pundits) but I don't think they are far off in their assessments, even if they were made for the wrong reasons. They are the most influential --- and that's the problem. When three of the top liberal pundits in the country are actually comedians (no matter how funny), you know there's a problem.

I suspect most Dems have a caricature in their mind of devious Republican smear artists, who help GOP candidates pander to the public’s worst instincts. These operatives specialize in opposition research — or, “oppo” — which, as the caricature tells us, involves political hitmen digging through dirt and peddling in innuendo, all in the interests of conning voters.

In reality, the caricature is probably a bit of an exaggeration. These smear artists don’t literally dig through Democrats’ garbage; they usually pay someone else to do that. But if we wanted to match this image with a real-life example, we’d have to point to Stephen Marks, who recently published, “Confessions of a Political Hitman,” and who chatted with the NYT’s Deborah Solomon about his career.

What led you to write your new book, “Confessions of a Political Hitman,” which chronicles your rather unsavory career as a Republican Party operative who was hired in hundreds of political campaigns to dig for dirt on Democratic candidates? I wouldn’t use the word unsavory. The voter has the right to know the history of any candidate in order to make the most educated vote.

Why do you make yourself sound as benevolent as a reference librarian? Because opposition researchers perform a needed public service.

In the 2000 election, you produced an infamous anti-Gore commercial, juxtaposing footage of Gore saying Al Sharpton couldn’t be altogether discounted with unrelated footage of Sharpton giving an inflammatory speech. I happened to have gotten some footage from some anti-Sharpton groups where he urged college students to kill cops: to off the “pigs,” as he put it.

How can you justify misrepresenting Gore like that? I’ll admit that the ad was nasty and negative, but it was accurate, just like the Willie Horton ad that finished off Dukakis.

Who paid you to make the commercial? Some folks in Tennessee who didn’t like Al Gore.

How do you sleep at night? Very well, thank you.

Asked specifically if he has any “moral qualms” about his professional efforts, Marks said, “No.”

Marks seems to understand perfectly well that he’s sleazy, and has smeared honorable candidates with garbage, but at the same time, he’s also quite pleased with himself.