We push our kids to go to college, to achieve and become educated, to learn how to think, even if you cannot instill the courage to do it.
But, they look around and see our politics dominated by mediocrity and something called Rush Limbaugh.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Thought for the Day, Graduation Day
Friday, May 29, 2009
Radical Doubt?
I don't think so.
Andrew is wrong about this, in my estimation. We won't know without a proper inquiry.
I don't believe there's much evidence that the intent of the torture program was sadism, .... And I see no evidence that those who waterboarded Zubaydah were doing it for the evil joy of it...
In pursuit of other arguments, both Hitchens and now Sullivan appear to ignore by omission the (fundamentalist?) retributive mindset that may well have existed. Why?
From Mukasey on back, the fact that so many involved continue to use in public statements the (exculpatory?) proposition that "only" the perpetrator of 9/11 was waterboarded is ... evidence, n'est pas?
From AS's own quote of the Convention:
intentionally inflicted on a person...punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed...
On some reckonings, gathering evidence of 'specific intent' is one clear reason why AG Eric Holder should not have let this play out in the press, but immediately declared an official investigation.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Tribunal Tribulations
I have to say that this is the first clear-cut time that the Obama Administration is falling down on communications.
Why isn't "the Press" asking why Bush-Cheney haven't already completed trials for everyone, after 'these eight years of keeping us safe', as Cheney says? Isn't it true that they just wanted to dump the problems onto the next guy?
Doesn't taking people to trial imply there is a chance that the court will let them go? All the posturing about letting terrorists free in our backyard - doesn't it almost make a mockery out of the very system of justice, tribunals, that Congress put in place, by implying that none of the 'hardened terrorists' could ever be let go?
Quote for the Day
Obama's calculations are not calibrated. The Left has nothing on the Right when it comes to blowing up a "storyline":
From Atrios:
The ease Republicans have in shifting the conversation from "torture is/was totally legal" to "NANCY KNEW!!!," ...
They kick the soccer ball, and the press follows. After all these years I'm not entirely sure why that is, but there you are. [I blame "liberal guilt", among other things.]
And, you know, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has precisely zero power but his every pronouncement is treated as Incredibly Important News. Any journalists want to explain why?
They kick the soccer ball, and the press follows. After all these years I'm not entirely sure why that is, but there you are. [I blame "liberal guilt", among other things.]
And, you know, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has precisely zero power but his every pronouncement is treated as Incredibly Important News. Any journalists want to explain why?
Leon Pannetta
He's totally off-base to knee-jerk defend Bush's CIA...
There is no public confidence in the CIA and Panetta is making a fool of the Administration by asserting some exists.
He has no idea whether lies of omission were made in the September, 2002, briefing.Obama ought to have him shut up*. There is no public confidence in the CIA and Panetta is making a fool of the Administration by asserting some exists.
Update: *turns out that it was an e-mail that the media blew-up to "released a statement"! Anything for a he-said, she-said story. Anything! You know today's media standards and what is accepted from them...
Today's Factoids
NO COSTLESS CLEAN-UP OF THE BUSH-ERA, NO MATTER WHAT THE REGIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY SAYS
Senator Lindsey Graham probably lied, the day before yesterday, when he said at the torture hearings that waterboarding was now illegal in America, implying it is not forward-looking to discuss it. I do not believe that is the current state of the law. Still checking, but so far, ...
Also, it is worth remembering:
- Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act, with its retroactive immunity.
- Obama voted against retroactive immunity for the Telcos.
What the Obama team may need is a clearer vision of what they want to transition to, which could take some more time, frankly, and, afterwards, a program to cast the clean-up of the Bush-era as a (a) a clean-up and (b) not a costless clean-up.
Pelosi, not part of the conspiracy to torture in America ...
THE REGIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY HATES THE CONSTITUTION, Q.E.D.
Whatever they briefed, she was briefed after the fact. So no conspiracy.
There is no evidence that she knew or should have known how to pick "waterboarding" from a CIA briefing list, in 2002. (I know that I would not have been able to. You?).
Until 2002, I cannot think of any time in memory in which a Congressman should have been expected to question the CIA's golden sheild, the Office of Legal Council opinion, to see if it was deliberately contrived or not. What's more, the CIA did not provide the legal memos until much, much later on down the road.
EYES FORWARD - THE MORE WE KNOW, THE MORE WE REALIZE THAT THE 2004 ELECTION WAS A FRAUD MADE POSSIBLE BY A CLOAK OF SECRECY
Here's the real breach of public trust and abuse of power (wait for the clips of the Bush Administration, if you want to "remember the urgency of the times", David Gregory!):
Even if one got wrongly persuaded of a "neo-con view" that Saddam was worth lying to the electorate over, to 'get action', there is NO WAY that argument can be expanded to include a conspiracy to torture.
Obama-Biden Wimping Out
SENATOR CHURCH, WHERE ARE YOU?
Judging by Rahm Emmanuel's Sunday talk-show performance a few weeks ago compared to subsequent events, it's plain that the W-House misjudged the impact of ... well, the truth.
Why? Partly because no one asked them what they would do, during the primaries, if it turned out that American torture was done.
MESSAGE TO ERIC HOLDER
It's simple.
Do justice. Don't seek convictions.
Got it?
Please Remain Seated as $93 Billion in Bush Legacy Costs Leaves the House
The supplemental is coming in around a staggering $90 Billion for this year. Although, in these times, $90 billion isn't sticker shock - can you believe it?
Facts of the day, from the Bill:
(5) Since 2001, the United States has contributed more than $33,000,000,000 to Afghanistan and $12,000,000,000 to Pakistan to strengthen each country's governance, economy, education system, healthcare services, and military.
The Regional Republicans will vote for it.
Missing: American Secrecy PLUS American Accountability
We ought to be able to have secrets and still do justice, without demanding that all the secrets be made known.
Seems simple.
Yet, the struggle over the latest batch of photos illustrates that secrecy continues to mean absence of ... a vigorous prosecutor, who can bring Justice among those who operate in secret.
Anyway, I disagree with Glenn Greenwald. "Information" of this kind has a price, large enough not to be ignored. We've paid it already. No need to pay again. The air war will likely be attenuated. Indefinite detention is unsupportable (administrative detention for limited periods is okay). The Hamas are not occupied - Israel withdrew from Gaza, gratis.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
More Reports of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld Political Use of the Torture Room
WOULDN'T A PROPER INVESTIGATION BE SO MUCH BETTER?
We all have to be careful not to seize on nuggets that may be part of a rightwing dis-information campaign that could later dent the credibility of an inquiry, but the Right blogosphere has the torture news of the day.
The office of the Vice President - whoever that turns out to be - is implicated in a communications chain in which "suggestions" of torture were passed down the chain, during the early interrogation of a captured, high-level Iraqi intelligence officer, Muhammed Khudayr al-Dulaymi in April, 2003.
Robert Windrem, writing exclusively at the DailyBeast:
*Two U.S. intelligence officers confirm that Vice President Cheney’s office suggested waterboarding an Iraqi prisoner, a former intelligence official for Saddam Hussein, who was suspected to have knowledge of a Saddam-al Qaeda connection.
*The former chief of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, in charge of interrogations, tells The Daily Beast that he considered the request reprehensible.
*The former chief of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, in charge of interrogations, tells The Daily Beast that he considered the request reprehensible.
Just for the record, I'm still waiting for someone to publish the cost to the taxpayers of the Iraqi Survey Group's big adventure (Joe Biden, can you please help?). More below the fold - this is not small potatoes!
Q: Now, one of the things that was revealed today, if the article is correct, is that the administration is seeking an additional $600 million to fund the Iraq survey group, to keep it going and to provide resources for its continued efforts. Is that accurate?
MR. McCLELLAN: There -- as with normal, or other budget appropriations, there are classified sections within those appropriations. This is a wartime supplemental. It does have a classified section, and it would not be appropriate for me to discuss those classified sections.
[...]
Q: Follow-up to Jim's question. Why is the amount of money the administration is seeking for the Iraq survey group classified? What's the rationale for that?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are classified sections in it. One, I can't get into the classified section of budget appropriations. This is a wartime supplemental, and so I can't -- it's not appropriate for me to discuss it -- the classified section further. You're asking me to get into confirming or denying certain parts of that matter.
But the Iraq survey group, as I've noted over here, continues to do its job. Keep in mind that Saddam Hussein had a sophisticated concealment strategy that was well-known, trying to deceive the international community, trying to conceal -- and they were caught by the weapons inspectors in the past for what they were concealing. So the Iraq survey group has a massive amount of documents, miles of documents to go through to uncover the full truth of his weapons of mass destruction programs. And that work continues. And it's important work.
Q: I'm not asking you to discuss what's in that classified section. I'm asking you what is -- as a matter of policy, why does that amount of money have --
MR. McCLELLAN: That would be asking me to talk about classified sections of the report.
Q: No, just the policy rationale for keeping this -- why is that -- why does that have to be secret?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's making assumptions about what's in the classified section of the report. It's a classified section that you're asking me to discuss
MR. McCLELLAN: There -- as with normal, or other budget appropriations, there are classified sections within those appropriations. This is a wartime supplemental. It does have a classified section, and it would not be appropriate for me to discuss those classified sections.
[...]
Q: Follow-up to Jim's question. Why is the amount of money the administration is seeking for the Iraq survey group classified? What's the rationale for that?
MR. McCLELLAN: There are classified sections in it. One, I can't get into the classified section of budget appropriations. This is a wartime supplemental, and so I can't -- it's not appropriate for me to discuss it -- the classified section further. You're asking me to get into confirming or denying certain parts of that matter.
But the Iraq survey group, as I've noted over here, continues to do its job. Keep in mind that Saddam Hussein had a sophisticated concealment strategy that was well-known, trying to deceive the international community, trying to conceal -- and they were caught by the weapons inspectors in the past for what they were concealing. So the Iraq survey group has a massive amount of documents, miles of documents to go through to uncover the full truth of his weapons of mass destruction programs. And that work continues. And it's important work.
Q: I'm not asking you to discuss what's in that classified section. I'm asking you what is -- as a matter of policy, why does that amount of money have --
MR. McCLELLAN: That would be asking me to talk about classified sections of the report.
Q: No, just the policy rationale for keeping this -- why is that -- why does that have to be secret?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's making assumptions about what's in the classified section of the report. It's a classified section that you're asking me to discuss
Oh, no, you are not done. There is more (can you believe it?).
Health Care Costs
Apparently, there is some "fallacy" about rising health care costs.
Huh?
In the 1990s, weren't we peddled managed-care as the way to ... limit health care costs?
The managed care experiment couldn't reign in the supply side cost growth, ultimately.
If Tyler really wants to posit that health care services inflation is being driven by runaway demand, I don't think he'll have much company...
All the same, as I have been saying a long time, no one appears to have built a decision-quality, public dataset that elucidates the cost drivers in the U.S. Sytem, so expect full blown, waste-of-time ideological arguments over 'the facts'... We tried, with the Federal database, but, on last look, it was not detailed enough. Right idea, not done well.
Our CIA Sucks
So bad.
Noted in passing:
According to U.S. sources, in 2004, the CIA had lost its entire agent network in Iran when a CIA headquarters communications officer was about to send instructions to an agent via its Inmarsat transmitter/receivers. The CIA officer attempted to download data intended for a single operative, but accidentally hit a button that sent it to the entire U.S. spy network in Iran, these sources said.
More triumphs of the covert division ... how "special".
[All the same, Pelosi v. CIA? Not a good move. These people will "generate" a briefing memo, rather than take on water ... and you know they have the capabilities to do it.]
Deadly Charm
NOTHING NETANYAHU WANTS IS IN THE U.S. INTEREST, TRUE OR FALSE?
Obama will meet with the man who could seriously dent his Presidency.
All roads point to the emergence of yet another "roadmap" without consequences (pdf), rather than robust settlement talks ("peace" is elusive, practically and theologically -!!!-, today).
First impressions matter. Experts say we size up new people in somewhere between 30 seconds and two minutes. So how will the first 30 seconds, and the rest of the meeting, go when President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sit down together on May 18?
- Elliot Abrams, WSJ (yes, that Elliot)
- Elliot Abrams, WSJ (yes, that Elliot)
The situation in the mid-east is grave.
- Netanyahu is a walking provocation with a smile.
- Obama doesn't have time to get involved in high-level diplomacy, of almost any kind.
- Few outside Israel seem to have the stomach to put real pressure on the Hammas, physical and otherwise.
- Hizb'allah is getting along apparently better than ever (U.S. training of the Lebanese Army is being recyled into capturing Isreali intelligence operatives inside Lebanon!).
- Except, they will take a second-seat only to Tehran and Syria.
- Netanyahu has pre-empted the ability to hold multi-party talks outside of Israel, by putting his public face against real talks with Syria (although, truth be told, the people of the Golan don't even want Syria...).
- The nuclear pressure-cooker continues to whistle on the back-burner, sounding all the way from Iran.
- The Hamas, despite their rocket sex antics, seem to have hit a stride, at least (they aren't being rejected by the Palestinians they 'sacrifice'). Their black-hole formulation of a settlement without a peace declaration is mind numbing, but apparently is good enough to hold the fort.
In the Ring, The Ultimate Fighter
TUF, in words rather than blood. Quintessential Dowd. Ranks with the time she pulled a Barberini Fawn out of the hat, maybe.
A $2 Trillion Torture Cost?
Julian Sanchez recently reminded us that the Japanese mis-judged the U.S.'s nuclear capabilities, at the end of WWII, based on false information they created via torture.
Paul Begala reminds us that we may have paid a huge price for torture, to the extent that the bogus interrogation of al-Libi was influential among the weak, like George "The Decider" Bush.
Even if the al-Libi data-point was 1% of "the case for war", that'd be a $2 billion dollar cost... On the other hand, if it was the last 1% required to convince someone, it wouldn't be wrong to allow the full $2 trillion dollar cost, so ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)