Let's Try Democracy: Most outrageous statement ever by a US Department of Justice

Calitics: WTF! Jerry Brown attends fundraiser for, and endorses, a Republican D.A. in San Bernardino

Mock, Paper, Scissors: Tengrain Presents..."The Memory Hole" starring Chimpy McStagger

The Baseline Scenario: A short question for Senior officials of the New York Fed

Words of Power: Why has the Obama/Biden administration put Pollyana in charge of US policy on Darfur?

HOLY CRAP: American Jihad...Cosmos Remixed...The Empire Strikes Back...Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher...Racist Roots...Hey, we’re not Roman Polanski, OK?...Israeli Taliban...War Whore and Moonie...More Rev. Moon fans...They turned me Muslim...Jesus died for your donuts...Compassion muscle...The War on Language...Catholic movie review...Cheerleader Preaching...God and Wal-Mart...Jesus wants you to laugh!

This is pretty big news. The big progressive groups hadn't yet spoken on the question of escalation in Afghanistan - their silence was pronounced. MoveOn finally broke that silence today, appealing to the President to commit to a clear exit strategy. It's a pretty big step.

U.S. policy in Afghanistan has reached a pivotal moment. President Obama is poised to make a critical decision about the Afghanistan war in the next few weeks. And there’s a big debate happening right now about what to do.

Pro-war advocates both inside and outside the administration—including John McCain and Joe Lieberman—are calling for a big escalation. The general in charge of Afghanistan is expected to request tens of thousands more troops, and that may just be the beginning. They’re cranking up the pressure for an immediate surge.

But other powerful voices are urging caution: Vice President Biden and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have raised real concerns about the idea of sending more troops to Afghanistan without a clear strategy, as have Democrats in Congress. And a majority of Americans oppose increasing troop levels.

Can you write to the White House and tell them we need a clear exit strategy—not tens of thousands more US troops stuck in a quagmire? You can send the President a message by clicking below:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51843&id=&t=1

Some administration officials are arguing for a smaller, nimbler approach with a narrow focus on the threat from al-Qaeda. But cheerleaders for the war refuse to acknowledge that there could be any viable strategy other than more and more troops. So they’re trotting out the same tired old lines and questioning the motives of those who disagree with them.

They figure they can cut off any debate about our ultimate goals in Afghanistan and the region. But President Obama has consistently shown a willingness to stand up for his more thoughtful approach to foreign policy, and that’s what he needs to do here, too.

The hawks are making their position heard. Now, the majority of Americans—those of us who are for as quick and as responsible an end to the war as possible—need to make our voices heard, too.

With Democrats opposing escalation by more than two to one, MoveOn is just reflecting the opinions of their membership. They're a bit late to the debate, but better than ducking it entirely.

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

DOWNLOADS: (58)

PLAYS: (87)

From Democracy Now:

A group of Iraqi labor leaders are here in the United States trying to bring international attention to the lack of a basic labor law in Iraq guaranteeing the right to unionize without repression. Although the United States has scrapped several Saddam Hussein-era laws since the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, a 1987 law banning unions in all public-sector workplaces remains in place. Last week the AFL-CIO adopted a resolution defending Iraqi labor rights. We speak to Iraqi labor leaders Rasim Awadi and Falah Alwan.

Once again, Amy Goodman is covering the stories the mainstream media won't touch. Most of their coverage of Iraq has fallen completely off the map. I'm glad to see the AFL-CIO getting involved in trying to do something to make these people's lives better after we went over there and blew up their country.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Iraq, where Vice President Biden recently pressed Iraqi leaders to enact further regulatory and financial protections to make Iraq more attractive to foreign investors. Speaking to Iraqi officials in Baghdad’s Green Zone last week, Biden called for the Iraqi Parliament to adopt laws to offer more incentives on oil concessions. He also noted the Iraq Business and Investment Conference in Washington next month could encourage private US investment in the country.

Well, as the Vice President was in Iraq promoting privatization last week, a group of Iraqi labor leaders were here in the United States attending the AFL-CIO convention, trying to bring international attention to the lack of basic labor law in Iraq guaranteeing the right to unionize without repression.

Although the United States has scrapped several Saddam Hussein-era laws since the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, a 1987 law banning unions in all public-sector workplaces remains in place.

The AFL-CIO adopted a resolution defending Iraqi labor rights last week, and US Labor Against the War is urging Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to press the Iraqi government to protect labor rights.

You can watch the rest of the interview and read the transcript at Democracy Now's web site.

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

DOWNLOADS: (837)

PLAYS: (1491)

Vice President Joe Biden told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that the US wouldn't stand in the way of Israel if they decided Iran was an existential threat. "Israel can determine for itself, it's a sovereign nation, what's in their interest, and what they do with Iran or anything else," said Biden.

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

DOWNLOADS: (731)

PLAYS: (1527)

Michael Ozanian, a Forbes national editor who I've posted about before. (FOX's Ozanian compares Hillary to Goebbels ) has a ludicrous view of what the middle class is in America, but why wouldn't he---he's a Saturday FOX Stock regular on Forbes on FOX and they never can tell the truth. The segment was from a couple of weeks ago that focused on VP Biden saying that Unions help the middle class and I just had to get this up. These rich Wall Streeters hate unions so they come up with bogus info to lie through the show. One idiot on the panel says benefits are robust in the private sector. Another says union member shouldn't be so antagonistic to their employers. For who? But Ozanian is the worst of the bunch and he gets rewarded with another show. Right Wingers take care of each other.

Ozanian: In general Unions have never worked. They have been detriment to the economy as Jack pointed out.

Asman: What about a hundred years ago, they weren't a detriment to the economy a hundred years ago.

Ozanian: You wanna go back to the way we were a hundred years ago?

There was a time when Unions did some good.

Ozanian: If you're in the middle class int this country, you have two cars, you have a house, you have some investment portfolio, you have very high standards for your food that you eat. That, you don't get in any to the other countries with high unions so you can take your safety net and stick it.

Asman: Give Neil a chance.

Neil Weinberg: As a Forbes editor you can say that that is average, two cars and a big house. 50,000 a year. I'm sorry, the average American worker does not feel wealthy, does not feel comfortable

Asman: It's still better than China where middle class income is at 3000dollars a year.

So now the standard we have to judge ourselves, the richest country in the world is China, who have no human rights? We're lucky we don't make 3K a year. OMG. David Asman sure makes an ass out of himself. I'm so glad we all eat like pigs and don't need any security to fall back on. I think all these Stock show pricks should have their salaries posted directly under their names whenever they go on these shows if they are going to lie with abandon like this.

Ozanian also is part of a new show called "Sports Money." Please leave him some comments.
By the way, Quentin Hardy is quite good on these telecasts even though I cut him out of this one. Here's his Facebook if you want to leave him a nice message.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1275)

PLAYS: (1986)

(h/t Heather for the vid)

ON FOX News Sunday, Chris Wallace really got into Joe Biden's remarks from the Today Show about the flu and ran with them pretty hard. It's been almost a week and the administration has clarified his statements, but that didn't stop Wallace from FOXing them up.

First he brought up a conspiracy theory that says the Vice President slipped up and was giving us information that the government didn't want Americans to know. Namely, that the swine flu is highly contagious and you had better stay in your house and lock your doors.

Wallace: I have to tell you, some people have said to me since Vice President talked. Maybe you guys are telling the public one thing, but at the highest levels of government you've heard something else, no -- you're saying to me that everything the Vice President Biden said, I'm not talking to the travel to Mexico. Being in a confined space, being in a classroom. Being in a school. Being in a subway, no health danger to any of that?

Sebelius: Again, with, we're letting the science lead this investigation and trying to be prudent...

Second, he asked if Biden was just insane.

Wallace: So why would the Vice President tell his family that? Are we to believe that the Vice President of the United States is a crackpot?

Sebelius: I think that each member of our country makes decisions about themselves and their family and about safety and security. What we're telling you is what the science says.

Kathleen Sebelius should have gotten up in his grill on that last point, but she's trying to be reassuring to the American people. We hope the next time a talking head gets out of line she will call them on it.

Wow, Chris Wallace had plenty of good reasons to call out Dick Cheney on a host of topics, but he never would have ever used that language to describe a "Vice President" of the United States during Cheney's tenure. FOX News has completely gone off the rails since President Obama was elected. They were always a propaganda arm for the GOP, but the ad hominem attacks have escalated to monumental proportions among their talk-show hosts.

Vice President Biden gave a much-anticipated speech at an international security conference in Munich on Saturday. Before an audience of several hundred - including General David Petraeus (seen scribbling notes while the VP spoke), Henry Kissinger, National Security Adviser Jones, French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel - Biden set out a US foreign policy vision which was both less hardline than the Bush administration's and yet firmly hawkish.

There's much to be glad about in Biden's speech.

To meet the challenges of this new century, defense and diplomacy are necessary. But quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, they are not sufficient. We also need to wield development and democracy, two of the most powerful weapons in our collective arsenals. Poor societies and dysfunctional states, as you know as well as I do, can become breeding grounds for extremism, conflict and disease. Non-democratic nations frustrate the rightful aspirations of their citizens and fuel resentment.

Our administration has set an ambitious goal to increase foreign assistance, to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015, to help eliminate the global educational deficit, and to cancel the debt of the world's poorest countries; to launch a new Green Revolution that produces sustainable supplies of food, and to advance democracy not through the imposition of force from the outside, but by working with moderates in government and civil society to build those institutions that will protect that freedom -- quite frankly, the only thing that will guarantee that freedom.

We also are determined to build a sustainable future for our planet. We are prepared to once again begin to lead by example. America will act aggressively against climate change and in pursuit of energy security with like-minded nations.

But there are some glaringly hawkish moments that reveal America isn't quite as willing to give up acting from its position of possessing overwhelming force as it would like others to be.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (54)

PLAY (87)

When is a withdrawal not a withdrawal? Apparently, when it's conducted by the Obama administration's "bipartisan" hangovers.

This Sunday,Joe Biden told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that a NY Times report alleging U.S. military commanders argued at Biden's national security meeting this week that they could not meet the 16-month U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq deadline called for by Obama was false.

"I'm not going to get into detail, but the answer is, nothing was that stark at all. There is -- there isn't any -- there isn't any conclusion reached or presentation made that suggests that we cannot rationalize the -- the status of forces agreement terms and the objectives of the Obama-Biden administration," Biden said.

"He is committed within the context of what he said at the time," Biden said of Obama. "He said he would at the time confer with the military leaders on the ground. We will be out of Iraq in -- in the same -- in the -- in the way in which Barack Obama described his position during the campaign. That will happen."

But on Charlie Rose midweek, Bob Gates was clear that withdrawal doesn't mean withdrawal, not by a long chalk.

ROSE: As far as you understand it, how many residual forces will be left [in Iraq] after 2011?

GATES: Well, I think that remains to be seen, and first of all, because any forces remaining there after the end of 2011 will have to be there as a result of a new agreement negotiated with the Iraqis. So they will clearly have a voice in how many are there as well.

ROSE: If they say none, it’s none or not?

GATES: That’s absolutely right.

ROSE: Yeah.

GATES: That’s absolutely right. They are a sovereign country, and if they tell us after the end of 2011, we want you all out, I think we have no choice but to do that. I think that just in a ball park figure when I think of the support that they likely are going to need for their air force, for their navy, for counterterrorism, for continued training, for intelligence, for logistics and so on, my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops, but clearly, in a very different role than we have played for the last five years.

Gates went on to say that these "several tens of thousands" of troops - the equivalent of at least ten brigades - wouldn't have a combat role, but this is still clearly parsing "complete withdrawal" as required by the SOFA beyond the boundaries of the language. Gates obviously expects three years to be "a long time", as both General Mullen and General Odierno have recently phrased it, and expects that what's in the SOFA right now won't be what happens when the day comes due to live up to it.

There's a massive disconnect between Gates and Biden here, one that's only explainable by two possibilities; either that major parsing of Obama's "withdrawal" and the letter of the SOFA agreement is taking place with Obama's permission, or that it isn't. The people deserve to know which one it is.

Continue reading »

The Jed Report put together this little video mashup of WFTV's Barbara West, giving us a nice side-by-side contrast of her respective interviews with Joe Biden and John McCain.

You can see the full Biden interview here and the full McCain video here. The latter is especially instructive in that we see just how far out there West is; mostly she's obsequious to the point of outright cheerleading with McCain, and her idea of a "tough" question for him is to ask him why he's not being wingnutty enough!

OTOH, you've just gotta love when she quotes Marx and then asks Biden why "spreading the wealth" isn't Marxist. Someone's been drinking the Bircher Kool Aid, which is in fact a direct ticket to Planet Bizarro.

Well, over at Firedoglake, they have a petition up asking for the station to apologize for sponsoring such bizarre behavior and such biased treatment. Go sign it.

I agree with Joe Biden. Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut." Tax cuts in a time of war, or a time of massive financial crisis, are unpatriotic. But not just tax cuts for the rich.

This should flow logically from rightwing positions as well as from "kitchen table" common sense that you can't spend more than you make. As I wrote in 2005:

"In times of war when the military needs every cent for armor, bullets and bandages, it is verging on treasonous to avoid paying taxes even if the methods used are ostensibly legal. It certainly isn't supporting the troops or the war on terror."

That was the point about the "Good War', WW2. Everyone shared the fiscal burden. Either a war is worth that commitment or it isn't, and rightwingers have consistently argued that the War on Some Terror is a generational war just as vital as WW2. Bush in 2005 said it:

World War II generation endured great suffering and sacrifice because they understood that defeating tyranny in Europe and Asia was essential to the security and freedom of America.

Like previous wars we have waged to protect our freedom, the war on terror requires great sacrifice from Americans.

So, here's the sacrifice. Put your money where your mouths are and make it.

Continue reading »

     How did I miss this, as reported by the UK's Guardian? Why isn't it a major news story in the U.S.? Ah yes...it's all about Sarah.

Biden's comments, first reported by ABC news, attracted little notice on a day dominated by the drama surrounding his Republican counterpart, Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

But his statements represent the Democrats' strongest vow so far this year to investigate alleged misdeeds committed during the Bush years.

"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued," Biden said during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, according to ABC.

"[N]ot out of vengeance, not out of retribution," he added, "out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president -- no one is above the law."

Obama sounded a similar note in April, vowing that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible "genuine crimes" and "really bad policies".

Back in April, Obama said that he would ask his AG to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted. Biden's statement simply confirms that the Obama campaign hasn't backed off from that intention.

But "genuine crimes." Where do we start? That would be a really good discussion to have right now, in my opinion. Aggressive war, torture, illegal rendition to torture, surveillance without warrants, criminal negligence over Katrina, various counts of perjury before Congress...

Instead we get endless talking heads pretending they don't know what their conservative guests really think - or even say when they think the mikes are off.

Update: In between when I wrote this post on Tuesday night and its posting today, Biden backed off his statement (H/t - JC in comments).

Biden emphasized that "no one's talking about President Bush. ... I've never heard anybody mention President Bush in that context." He noted that "there's been an awful lot of unsavory stuff that's gone on ... but I have no evidence of any of that. No one's talking about pursuing President Bush criminally."

Biden concluded his comments by explaining that possible misdeeds are
"being looked into now, just so it never happens again in any other administration. ... The Obama-Biden administration is not going to start off saying, 'God, let's go take a look at what this --.' The American people want to know what we're going to do, not what happened." 

I understand the arguments on why the Obama campaign should tread softly on this - that it will simply enrage and energize the Republican base. But Palin has already energized that base and in any case this whole triangulation thing strikes me as spineless fence-sitting.

 McCain's Supreme Court position, in pop-ups

Joe Biden's ability to out straight talk the faux-maverick is definitely an asset for him. He sees what's important right now and isn't afraid to put it plainly.

Biden said U.S. President George W. Bush’s two conservative appointees — Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito — have pushed the nation’s highest court far to the right.

This, Biden charged, has threatened civil liberties and set back efforts to desegregate schools and obtain equal pay for women.

“Other than ending the war in Iraq, the single most significant thing that Barack Obama can do — and I hope I’ll be able to he help him — will be to determine who the next members of the Supreme Court are going to be.”

... During the next four years, Biden said, citing life expectancy estimates, there may be as many as three vacancies on the nine-member court.

“It’s not merely the woman’s right to choose (to have an abortion) which is at stake,” Biden told a mostly female crowd of several hundred people.

“It’s whether or not you are going to be able to have a fair shot at a fair wage,” Biden said. “It’s whether or not you are going to able to demand that you are treated equally in every aspect of your life.”

Those PUMAs who have said they'll support McCain would do well to reflect on Biden's words and McCains.

When National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru asked McCain whether he admires any Supreme Court justice in particular, he answered “of course, Antonin Scalia…I admire how articulate he is, but I also from everything I’ve seen admire Roberts as well.”

  Download | play   Download | play   (h/t BillW)

The Washington Post yet again manages to produce an op-ed only fit to wrap fish in, as neocon Michael Rubin - ex of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, the Office of the Secretary of Defense as an advisor to Rummie, political adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority and unpaid hack for propaganda articles produced by the Pentagon's PR firm, the Lincoln Group - blames Joe Biden for eight years of Bush administration foreign policy failure in a desperate attempt to label Biden as "Iran's favorite Senator".

Here's how Rubin's logic works, as explained by Ilan Goldenberg of Democracy Arsenal:

Rubin makes a convoluted and nonsensical argument that A.  Joe Biden supported engagement with the reformist Khatami government of Iran during the late 1990s and first half of this decade.  That B.  During that time trade between Iran and the EU increased.  That C.  A National Intelligence Estimate found that Iran had stopped working on its nuclear weapons program in 2003.  From this he deduces that it's Biden's fault that Iran has moved ahead on its nuclear weapons program because it used increased trade with Europe to fund a nuclear weapons program.  What???

... Rubin basically takes a bunch of unrelated facts and uses them to conclude that Iran must have spent 2000 to 2003 working furiously on its nuclear weapons program and that it did it with money from Europe that somehow Joe Biden was responsible for.  Yup, putting those rigorous analytical skills that he learned that the Office of Special Plans to work.

Rubin also forgets to mention little details.  Like the fact that under this Administration trade with Iran has actually increased ten-fold and is at its highest levels since before the Iranian revolution.  Or the fact that the 2007 NIE concluded that Iran did in fact stop working on its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and was still years away from building a bomb.

Rubin then claims that Biden's vote against Kyl-Lieberman was partisan politics because Biden said that he didn't trust this Administration.  Ummm.... Trying to prevent war with Iran is not exactly a partisan activity.  It's not partisan to fear that an administration that has a track record of escalating conflict and misleading the American public might do it again.  That is in fact the exact opposite of partisan if you believe that war with Iran is against America's interests.

Continue reading »

Download | play    Download | play   (h/t Heather)

Let me say first that while I didn't support Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, I could certainly understand why her supporters did.  She's tough, she's arguably one of the smartest people in Washington and she's extremely capable.  And even her detractors must admit that it was a very tough primary season, made worse by the media's need to fill up 24/7 with content that appeared to relish pitting Democrats against one another, usually quite unfairly.

That being said, if any Hillary Clinton supporter actually goes through with this suggestion from Bill "I'm not right about anything, but I still get my regular TV gig to screw over the national discourse" Kristol, you are being played, big time.   This is Operation Chaos in all its nakedly partisan glory.

Kristol (who, by the way, is NEVER right about anything, have I said that recently?) is clearly scared of Obama's pick of Joe Biden for the vice president slot, because as he admits, Biden has the foreign policy experience, the alleged lack of which they are so fond of attacking Obama.  So in the only battlefield that Kristol has the gonads to scale, he challenges Clinton supporters (naturally, it's easier to be brave when others are the soldiers, isn't it, Billy?) to launch a protest by nominating Clinton as the Vice President at the convention, forcing a roll call vote. 

KRISTOL: Look, Senator Obama is going to be the nominee, there's no point in contesting that roll call. What I would encourage Hillary supporters to do...

WILLIAMS: Oh boy...

LIASSON: No!

KRISTOL: ...is to express their outrage over the pick of Senator Biden over the better qualified Senator Clinton as the Vice Presidential pick by putting her nomination for the vice presidency. That would be a good roll call vote, don't you think? Clinton and Biden. Although I'm not sure she wouldn't beat him. And that would be exciting and that would be a ben...it would be a favor to Senator Obama. Because the truth is Obama/Clinton is a much stronger ticket. It is a stronger ticket than Obama/Biden. Does anyone seriously doubt that Hillary Clinton would bring all the Clinton voters over? Whereas Biden I think is going to have a tough time doing so.

WILLIAMS: It would be drama. But I think that you make
that suggestion as a subversive act...

KRISTOL: You think? [laughs] No...no...

Listen up, for those of you considering this:  THIS IS A SUGGESTION FROM SOMEONE WHO THINKS THE IRAQ INVASION AND OCCUPATION WILL MAKE GEORGE W. BUSH A GREAT PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY BOOKS. 

Can I possibly reiterate how wrong Kristol ALWAYS is? 

I don't care how unfairly you think Clinton was treated during the primaries (and frankly, I might agree with you on that) nor how great a VP you think she'd make (she'd be great and it would be a historic administration with an African-American and a woman leading the country--I'll stipulate the whole to you for the sake of argument), it is simply bad for the party, bad for the country and insulting to our collective intelligence as Democrats and/or liberals to do anything that the leading neo-con cheerleader for the Worst. President. Ever. suggests.

Don't even think about it.

Full transcript of his pathetic tactics below

Continue reading »