MyDD: Tea Baggers set their sights on Climate Change. Here's more...

Consortiumblog: Shining light on the roots of terrorism

Truthdig: Testing next year's lies today

Respectful Insolence: Hmmm...maybe I fell for Obama's liberofascist plot to poison me

The Existentialist Cowboy: The End of American Community

HOLY CRAP: Faith is no defense...How Rev Moon bought Washington...In the 'next world'... Robertson puts McDonnell in a bind...Meet John Thune...God, the Army, and PTSD...Catholic morality...I thoroughly enjoyed their evisceration...Godless billboard moved after threats...Charles Colson on Atheists...Nashville gets secular...Ted Haggard returning to revivalist racket...Postcard from God to Glenn Beck...The God Gene... onegoodmove is one of my favorite sources for Holy Crap and lots of other good stuff!

You know, you have to appreciate that guys like Anthony Weiner and Joe Sestak will go on Bill O'Reilly's show to try to bravely counter his nonstop deluge of right-wing talking points. But as he demonstrated last night when he had them on to talk about the New York City terrorism trials, he just proved once again why it's never a winning proposition to go on his show, no matter how hard you try.

O'Reilly only invites liberals on to set them up for a shoutdown, really -- and that's what he did last night. Both Weiner and Sestak pointed out the absurdity of O'Reilly's fears about the civil court system setting the terrorists free -- and worse still, in O'Reilly's view, actually being permitted to stand up and voice their beliefs as part of their defense.

O'Reilly just wound up shouting at them about the four-year trial of Zacarias Moussaoui -- who in fact was convicted. But to O'Reilly, what was intolerable was that Moussaoui was able to use the trial as "propaganda" for radical Islam.

O'Reilly just doesn't believe in the American way of justice, and is afraid to let the world see our justice. Fortunately, many more of us are not so cowardly.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1252)

PLAYS: (2158)

I'd like to know why the producers of This Week thought it was necessary to bring Laura Ingraham on the show to defend Fox News? She had about as much to add to the conversation as Michelle Malkin did not long ago. The rest of the Villagers did a pretty good job of circling the wagons around Fox whether the likes of Ingraham was there or not. Ingraham's hackery became even too much for the rest of them to take when she started comparing the White House's view of Fox to that of "Islamic Jihadists".

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now the president did cancel the subscription, George, but then he kind of blew it off. Is it time now as President Obama faces down FOX News down for a JFK moment?

WILL: I think so. Look, no president in the history of this republic has less reason to complain about his treatment in the press than President Obama. Liberals have academic, they have a mainstream media, they have Hollywood. They’re all for diversity and everything but thought. And out here is this one channel, FOX, and they’re all up in arms because in the words of Ms. Dunn of the White House, it is opinion journalism masquerading as news, which some of us would say describes the “New York Times” and certainly MSNBC.

PODESTA: Well, we have partners in journalism in America for a couple hundred years. But I think FOX takes it a little bit to a different level. I think Bill Shein, the vice president for news at FOX came out and said, “We are the opposition.” You know, that I think, can you imagine David Westin going out and saying something like that? Anybody, really in the mainstream news organization, they’re organizing. And I think it seems to me they were overcome with that feeling of joy you get from telling the truth once in a while. And probably they may actually even regret going as far as they have.

INGRAHAM: Well as the FOX representative on this show, by the way, you’re all going to be banned from any future White House events from having me at this table.

Bill Shein said that and I know him well. He said that, because he believes that of all the networks, FOX was going to hold the administration the most accountable. Last time I checked, I thought that was the role of the press. I think and again, I might not be invited back George, but when Charlie Gibson didn’t know what the ACORN story was all about, that was a collective gasp you heard across the United States. Charlie Gibson is an esteemed journalist, how do you not know a story about a group where President Obama cut his political teeth that had been exposed to the extent that Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill were ready to pull the rug out from under them in their funding? That’s the kind of the story that the White House doesn’t want to have reported and repeated on other networks. That’s why they don’t like FOX News.

Continue reading »

Goes to the man who was fighting the terrorists for Jesus: Lt. Gen. William Boykin!

There's been a Condi Rice sighting, everybody! And she brings good news with her. She says that we'll get hit with another terrorist attack if we leave Afghanistan.

In a new interview with Fortune Magazine, Rice offered extremely sharp criticism of the idea of withdrawal and painted the consequences of this course of action with an almost Cheneyesque bluntness.

"The last time we left Afghanistan, and we abandoned Pakistan," she said, "that territory became the very territory on which Al Qaeda trained and attacked us on September 11th. So our national security interests are very much tied up in not letting Afghanistan fail again and become a safe haven for terrorists.

"It's that simple," she declared, "if you want another terrorist attack in the U.S., abandon Afghanistan."

As the Washington Post reported Monday, Obama is rethinking all aspects of the U.S. strategy in the Afghanistan in light of the disputed presidential election, an increase in U.S. casualties and waning public support here in America.

In the interview, Rice did acknowledge the recent election as a setback. But she argued that our own experience with democracy proved that it takes time to get things right: "Our democracy wasn't so perfect at the beginning either," she said, citing her own family's experience in the pre-Civil Rights era.

This comes from the woman who ignored the NSA memos about Osama Bin Laden which warned her that terrorists might fly planes into buildings. This comes from the woman who lied about those nasty aluminum tubes and said: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Let's continue to follow her down the road paved of blood.

Blue America is just beginning our campaign against the Afghanistan war with our new action titled "No Means No!" We are slowing bringing in other partners to join in before we amp it up....

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1611)

PLAYS: (1208)

It's one thing for the Bernie Sanderses and Russ Feingolds to openly question the mission in Afghanistan. It's quite another for Dianne Feinstein to do so.

KING: Well Senator Feinstein, you're the chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence. To the question of where this ends, it is eight years after 9/11. We've paused and reflected on that just the other day. You see the things that we can't see, the intelligence. Are we winning in Afghanistan? Are we any closer to finding Osama bin Laden, and does the president have a clear strategy, in your view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I can tell you this. A lot of the leadership has been taken out of al Qaeda. I can say and I think you would agree that Afghanistan and the Pakistani border are still the major safe haven, the major safe haven for terrorists in the world. And these are people who will, if they can, come after us, not necessarily the Taliban, but certainly al Qaeda and other affiliated groups.

So we have to consider that. We have about 60,000 troops there, another 8,000 are moving in with our allies, it about equals the force that is in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, the president has had no request for additional troops up to this time. My view is that the mission has to be very clear. I don't believe --

KING: Has to be means it is not now?

FEINSTEIN: I believe it is not now. I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan. I believe it will remain a tribal entity.

I do believe that clearing out Al Qaida, clearing out the Taliban is a bona fide part one of the mission. I do agree that training Afghan troops, Afghan -- Afghan police is an important piece of the mission.

I believe the mission should be time limited, that there should be no, well, we'll let you know in a year and a half, depending on how we do. I think the Congress is entitled to know, after Iraq, exactly how long are we going to be in Afghanistan.

Feinstein is actually more charitable about the presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan than the commanding general on the ground, Stanley McChrystal, who said this week that there are no signs of major Al Qaeda anywhere in the country.

But as far as the wariness of the viability of Constitutional democracy in Afghanistan, you need only look to their recent election, into which the opposition leader is now seeking a criminal investigation. He has accused Hamid Karzai of treason and "state-engineered fraud". Despite this, Karzai will probably win election on the first ballot, and a vote that has been horribly compromised will be made official. We saw in Iran how this can lead to violence and chaos, and Afghanistan is not nearly as stable. Without a viable partner in the government, as Feinstein says we cannot expect an endless commitment. Yet because Karzai is Pashtun the US will likely back him in this fight, alienating the other ethnic groups in the region. Kalashnikovs are flying off the shelves in the Tajik areas. Civil war is not an unlikely scenario at this point.

This further limits the mission, away from state-building and toward dealing with the elements in the country willing to deal. Otherwise we set ourselves up for a decade-long slog that will only end with more dead and more treasure squandered, to little effect. And yes, as Sen. Feinstein says, that process should have an end date.

(h/t Heather)

Blue Gal: What I DON'T want to write about

Corrente: Health insurance parasites - documenting a rogue industry

naked capitalism: Is Wall St. about to ruin another financial product?

Jack & Jill Politics: When will this White House learn that you cannot negotiate with terrorists...or lying assh*les...or morons

cab drollery: Busted

Lost in Tarnation: Muslim Monster Diety to Terrify Nation's Children on First Day of School

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: So... War is Hell?...Putting the "BS" In PBS...The Bottom...Anatomy of a Column...When wingers scream, your press will eventually deliver...Cue Joe Cocker...Ed Murrow & Glenn Beck: Homies?...Gawker to-publish Russian translation of buried story story critical of Putin...Just how crazy is Pat Buchanan?...Referral to the Dean's office...Saving Mt. Wilson...Courting disaster...

TalkLeft: The Madman Theory of Political Bargaining

pandagon: "Stupid", "racist", and "scared" are not mutually exclusive categories

Sadly, No! But...but, John Mackey is nice to bunny rabbits

Minnesota Independent: Up is down. Michele Bachman to government...wait for it....Hands off my body!

Connecting.the.Dots: Obama's unwanted war

The Pump Handle: Occupational Health News Roundup

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (79)

PLAYS: (127)

Good little GOP water carrier John King asks Susan Rice what she thinks about disgraced ex-UN Ambassador John Bolton's statement that "It comes perilously close to negotiating with terrorists" sending Bill Clinton to North Korea to free the two journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee. Gee John, why didn't you just ask her if Clinton was "palling around with terrorists" while you were at it?

Rice appropriately said that the statement was ridiculous. I have a question for John King. Why do you think anyone should care what John Bolton thinks about anything? The man never found a country out there he didn't want to deal with in any manner other than with threats and intimidation. Bush had to put him in there as a recess appointment since he'd have never been confirmed by the Senate, but you're going to ask the new Ambassador who did make it through the confirmation process what she thinks of war monger Bolton's statement? Spare me King.

KING: Another dramatic international story this past week was former President Bill Clinton coming back from North Korea. A president you served at the State Department and in the White House. He came back with the journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who had been kept prisoner in North Korea.

There are those very critical of this. While they're applauding the release of these two journalists, they say essentially that the United States gave up too much. A man who once held your job at the United Nations, John Bolton, saying, "It comes perilously close to negotiating with terrorists," sending Bill Clinton over there and giving North Korea certainly a propaganda victory with those photographs. Perilously close to negotiating with terrorists?

RICE: Absolutely not. That's, in fact, a ridiculous statement. We don't negotiate with terrorists. That's the policy of the United States, but this was a unique opportunity for the former president, on a private humanitarian mission, to obtain the release of two American women who have been held for many months.

It would have been disgraceful for the United States, having verified that this was a real opportunity to obtain their release, to leave them in captivity.

KING: He's not just...

RICE: This was a private humanitarian mission. It accomplished the release of these two women. We're relieved and delighted to see them reunited with their families. It in no ways changes our policy or approach to North Korea, and we are quite pleased with the outcome.

Continue reading »

Steven Pearlstein writes an excellent column in the Washington Post that says what most of the media will never say. Republicans lie every chance they get to try and destroy health care reform. The title of his piece is: Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems...

It's not too long so read it for yourself.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 172

PLAYS: 12

(Edwin Wilson - one of the CIA's Greatest Hits)

As I was digging through the archives in search of more Reagan Years material, I ran across this rather interesting tidbit via ABC World News Tonight from August 28. 1981. I forgot completely about it, and it seems so did everyone else.

The story goes, Edwin Wilson was a CIA operative working in Libya and, according to various sources, was training Libyans (or anyone with a checkbook) to carry out various assassinations and plots . . everything the CIA swears up and down they don't do. There were allegations of former Green Berets enlisted to train terrorists - or as Wilson says in his interview: "to train people in compass reading and low-level field operations".

Sounds a little like he was training troops of Boyscouts, but in 1981 people paid scant attention and the story blew over rather quickly. Wilson was convicted of transporting explosives to the Libyans and sentenced to 27 years in prison. It's just interesting that a similar story came to light in the later 80's, only that time it was called the Iran-Contra affair.

Oh, those crooked webs . . . .

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1031)

PLAYS: (2061)

Is Liz Cheney drawing a check from the RNC? I know she's Newt Gingrich's VP and all, but this is ridiculous. She's learned well from Daddy Dearest.

Greg Sargent:

That’s not really an exaggeration! On an appearance on MSNBC, Liz Cheney appeared to say that Obama’s speech in Cairo today showed that he wants to deal with terrorists by “hand-holding.” Check out what she said starting around 30 seconds in.
Here’s a transcript:

“I think that if we lived in a world where terrorism, and the slaughter of innocents, and Iran’s hegemonic hopes for the Middle East could be met, could be defeated, could be dealt with by sort of hand-holding going forward, then we’d be in a much simpler environment. But these are very, very tough issues. And I was troubled by the extent to which I heard moral relativism.”

That’s some highly suggestive language coming from Ms. Cheney, isn’t it?

In reality, in his speech today, Obama strongly denounced 9/11-denial to an Arab audience, said American troops are in Afghanistan out of “necessity,” because terrorists are “determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can,” and said America’s commitment to destroying terror networks “will not waver.”

She's just in line with the usual conservative nutty attacks. Remember when Rove said this about liberals in 2005:

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (472)

PLAYS: (987)

(The C&L video archives rule again!)

Rove last night also criticized Democrats for responding weakly to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said

Rove should have been fired for this, but the media never minds when conservatives call liberals traitors. Froomkin wrote an excellent piece on this. Nothing has changed much from 2005, has it?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1332)

PLAYS: (2664)

Former Vice President Dick Cheney responded to an op-ed by former National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism Richard Clarke during questions at the National Press Club Monday. Cheney suggested Clarke didn't warn the Bush administration that terrorists wanted to attack the U.S. Clarke "obviously missed it," said Cheney.

Cheney is, of course, lying. Clarke's January 2001 warning to the incoming administration is fully documented in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Well, I'm just going to say it: Obama gives a very nice speech, but his plans worry me. Ever see "Minority Report," the movie with Tom Cruise? Set in the future, he works for the Department of Pre-Crime. The police use technology to predict who will commit crimes, and they arrest them before the crimes happen.

Don't pretty this up, folks. This is exactly the position Obama expressed in his speech today, and if we keep silent simply because he's a Democrat, well, we're not doing our job as citizens of this democratic republic.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Digby said:

I know it's a mess, but the fact is that this isn't really that difficult, except in the usual beltway kabuki political sense. There are literally tens of thousands of potential terrorists all over the world who could theoretically harm America. We cannot protect ourselves from that possibility by keeping the handful we have in custody locked up forever, whether in Guantanamo or some Super Max prison in the US. It's patently absurd to obsess over these guys like it makes us even the slightest bit safer to have them under indefinite lock and key so they "can't kill Americans."

The mere fact that we are doing this makes us less safe because the complete lack of faith we show in our constitution and our justice systems is what fuels the idea that this country is weak and easily terrified. There is no such thing as a terrorist suspect who is too dangerous to be set free. They are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. There is not some finite number of terrorists we can kill or capture and then the "war" will be over and the babies will always be safe. This whole concept is nonsensical.

The real terrorists, I'm afraid, are the self-serving hawks who promise to explode a political dirty bomb in the halls of the capitol every time someone tries to be sensible about American foreign policy and national security. They are still running things. They have always run things. And the sorry fact is that their dominance is a decades long model of bipartisan comity.

Glenn Greenwald:

So now, we're going to have huge numbers of people who spent the last eight years vehemently opposing such ideas running around arguing that we're waging a War against Terrorism, a "War President" must have the power to indefinitely lock people away who allegedly pose a "threat to Americans" but haven't violated any laws, our normal court system can't be trusted to decide who is guilty, terrorists don't deserve the same rights as Americans, the primary obligation of the President is to "keep us safe," and -- most of all -- anyone who objects to or disagrees with any of that is a leftist purist ideologue who doesn't really care about national security.

In other words, arguments and rhetoric that were once confined to Fox News/Bush-following precincts will now become mainstream Democratic argumentation in service of defending what Obama is doing. That's the most harmful part of this -- it trains the other half of the citizenry to now become fervent admirers and defenders of some rather extreme presidential "war powers."

And Will Bunch sums up:

No matter how much Obama tries to blame this on the Cheney torture policies (which created that inadmissible evidence), two wrongs don't make a right. What he's proposing is against one of this country's core principles, which is habeas corpus. No matter how many guidelines that Obama and his administration try to impose, there is nothing in the Constitution that would permit the indefinite jailing of people "who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes" but who "nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States" -- nor should their be. Not even if we ever do develop the mind-reading powers of a "thought police."

This is why people need to keep the pressure on Obama -- even those inclined to view his presidency favorably. Because while clearly his overall approach to torture and detention issues are "on the right track" as opposed to the very "wrong track" of Cheney and Bush, it is so easy inside the Beltway to start veering off the rails. Making people accountable for the torture and Guantanamo debacles of the Bush years requires the American people constantly holding our new president accountable, too.

From the Department of "Not Making This Up":

Representative Brian Nieves, who as Missouri GOP Majority Whip is the #5 Republican in the state's House of Representatives, in the first clip refers to waterboarding as "a little water on the face," and in the second clip clarifies his position that he is really truly supportive of "waterboarding terrorists" but not American citizens held in a privately-run prison.

From the terrific state blog Fired Up! Missouri:

The mocking of the controversy about waterboarding as "putting a little bit of water in their face" is really offensive. If Nieves doesn't think that waterboarding doesn't reach the threshold for torture, fine. I think he's wrong (as do more than 70% of Americans, including weak-kneed libruls like John McCain), but the minimizing of the practice as just "water in the face" is way beyond the pale.

....[T]his Nieves Doctrine of torturing terrorists -- but not American citizens -- raises another whole set of questions. For instance: how does the Nieves [Torture] Doctrine address situations in which an individual is both a terrorist and an American citizen? For instance, would it have been okay to waterboard Timothy McVeigh or Unabomber Ted Kaczynski? If waterboarding is both (a) not torture and (b) effective, then why wouldn't we do it to citizens?

And why don't the voters of Nieves' 98th district throw him out on his fanny? Because he's tougher on terrorists than John McCain? Maybe they think they'll get more media attention if they're represented by a pro-torture decline-of-the-GOP poster child. We got your media attention right here, Missouri.

More likely, because Nieves can't run for re-election in 2010 due to term limits, he's working really hard to make a name for himself state-wide as "more Republican than thou", which of course means really really loving the waterboarding thing.

Honestly, they make me sick.