"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Thursday, September 23, 2010

We were right all along
Posted by Jill | 5:53 AM
We were right about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We were right that George Bush took us to war on a lie. And we were right that the Bush Administration used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to put anyone who didn't march in lockstep with them under surveillance:
The Thomas Merton Center, located in a humble storefront in Pittsburgh, is an inviting social justice space where visitors can pick up some pamphlets on non-violent civil disobedience or hold a community potluck. The center, named for an activist and Trappist monk, proudly promotes pacifism, but that didn’t prevent the FBI from spying on Merton Center activists in 2002, branding them terrorists and then later lying about it to Congress.

That was one of the critical findings of a report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine. The report said that between 2001 and 2006, the FBI also kept tabs on a Seattle antiwar activist as well as individuals affiliated with Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Catholic Workers and Quakers. The agency improperly placed these activists on terrorist watch lists, according to the report.

The report found that the FBI gave inaccurate and misleading information to Congress and the public in 2006 when it claimed that an agent who spied on an anti-war rally organized by Thomas Merton Center activists was investigating individuals with possible links to terrorism.

The surveillance of a Merton center rally in November 2002, which consisted of antiwar activists distributing information in a public space, was “an ill-conceived project on a slow work day,” according to the report. The FBI's surveillance of the rally was initially revealed via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which subsequently sparked Fine's probe.

The report said an agent asked his superior for something to do on a slow day of work, and he was directed to monitor the rally for potential terrorism suspects. Fine's investigation found that the agent’s “make work” assignment had nothing to do with any specific terrorism investigation.

And the worst thing is that we have no assurance that the Obama Administration isn't doing the same damn thing.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, November 19, 2009

No matter how hard Republicans want to pretend that Barack Obama was president from 2000-2008, that doesn't make it true
Posted by Jill | 5:30 AM
And while the right is having vapors about how President Barack Hussein Obama, the secret Muslim terrorist who is both a Nazi and a part of the Great Jewish Conspiracy at the same time "allowed" a "possible terrorist" to remain in the military, the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration's policy to let anyone with a pulse serve because they needed enough people for their Middle East meatgrinder allowed Nidal Hassan to serve:
Two years ago, a top psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was so concerned about what he saw as Nidal Hasan's incompetence and reckless behavior that he put those concerns in writing. NPR has obtained a copy of the memo, the first evaluation that has surfaced from Hasan's file.

Officials at Walter Reed sent that memo to Fort Hood this year when Hasan was transferred there.

Nevertheless, commanders still assigned Hasan — accused of killing 13 people in a mass shooting at Fort Hood on Nov. 5 — to work with some of the Army's most troubled and vulnerable soldiers.

On May 17, 2007, Hasan's supervisor at Walter Reed sent the memo to the Walter Reed credentials committee. It reads, "Memorandum for: Credentials Committee. Subject: CPT Nidal Hasan." More than a page long, the document warns that: "The Faculty has serious concerns about CPT Hasan's professionalism and work ethic. ... He demonstrates a pattern of poor judgment and a lack of professionalism." It is signed by the chief of psychiatric residents at Walter Reed, Maj. Scott Moran.

When shown the memo, two leading psychiatrists said it was so damning, it might have sunk Hasan's career if he had applied for a job outside the Army.


Perhaps they hoped Hasan would snap in time for the 2008 election, reminding Americans just how much we are in danger from terr'ists all the time and how only Republicans, who presided over the worst attack ever on American soil, can keep them safe by allowing such attacks to happen.

(h/t)

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, August 21, 2009

We are owed an apology
Posted by Jill | 6:22 AM
We were called traitors. We were told to leave the country. We were called every name in the book because we said that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. We were called un-American when we questioned why Osama bin Laden was allowed to escape at Tora Bora. We questioned the need for the kinds of 4th Amendment violations to which the Bush Administration was committed and we were told that only terrorists would be targeted, not Americans. And we also noticed that imminent threats seemed to always appear when George Bush was in trouble -- and wrote that we thought such threats were being ginned up for political reasons. Keith Olbermann noted this in a continually-updated series:






And once again, we were right:

Tom Ridge, the first secretary of homeland security, asserts in a new book that he was pressured by top advisers to President George W. Bush to raise the national threat level just before the 2004 election in what he suspected was an effort to influence the vote.

After Osama bin Laden released a threatening videotape four days before the election, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld pushed Mr. Ridge to elevate the public threat posture but he refused, according to the book. Mr. Ridge calls it a “dramatic and inconceivable” event that “proved most troublesome” and reinforced his decision to resign.

The provocative allegation provides fresh ammunition for critics who have accused the Bush administration of politicizing national security. Mr. Bush and his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, were locked in a tight race heading into that final weekend, and some analysts concluded that even without a higher threat level, the bin Laden tape helped the president win re-election by reminding voters of the danger of Al Qaeda.

The progressive blogosphere was called every name in the book because unlike those who dove under the bed with a plastic tarp in one hand and a roll of duct tape in the other every time George Bush or Dick Cheney said "Boo!", we looked at the evidence and what was going on OUTSIDE the Administration and rightly concluded that they were full of shit. Unlike those who dove under the bed with a plastic tarp in one hand and a roll of duct tape in the other every time George Bush or Dick Cheney said "Boo!", we noted that when warnings came in of an impending attack, George Bush and Dick Cheney did nothing -- and yet they insisted they were the ones who kept us safe. By the time they left office, they'd convinced the plastic sheeting and duct tape crowd that 9/11 had happened on Bill Clinton's watch. But on every single issue on which we noted the truth, we were called traitors by the right. But we were correct and they were wrong.

They owe us an apology, but I know full well it isn't coming. Because as we are now seeing in the health care debate, the right and their frothing, screaming, spittle-caked willfully ignorant minions don't care about truth. Because to them, ideology trumps everything. The next time a conservative says "Country first", I hope people recognize that it's just another lie out of a right-wing mouth. Because it's NEVER "Country first" with these people. It's always about ideology and power.

Keith Olbermann will have an update tonight.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, June 04, 2009

Can't keep track of the torture justifications without a scorecard? Here ya go.
Posted by Jill | 6:06 AM
The intrepid Batocchio has come up with a convenient scorecard you can use to connect the dots, as it were, of the public statements of torture advocates.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, May 18, 2009

George W. Bush's Crusade against Islam
Posted by Jill | 5:26 AM
Why on earth is there anyone in this country anywhere still defending the Bush Administration on anything? Here it is, we are nearly a half-year into a new Administration, and I'd much prefer to put my energies into things like why all of a sudden Barack Obama is now afraid to touch the very words "single payer" with a 10-foot pole?

I wonder just how long the atrocities of the Bush Administration are going to continue to shock and appall us. But as long as official Washington is loath to bring these criminals to justice at the same time as they're sending 22-year-old potsmokers to jail, I guess we'll have to continue with our hapless and pointless moral outrage. Because if we stop that and say, Peggy Noonan-like, that we should just "keep walking", who's to say what the next Republican psychopath who manages to exploit the fears of a coddled nation is going to do?

What kind of a media environment do we have when Orrin Hatch is unchallenged when he claims that "empathy" is code for "activist judges" and the release of memos sent by Donald Rumsfeld to George W. Bush has to be done by GQ Magazine?

Robert Draper reports:
on the morning of Thursday, April 10, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon prepared a top-secret briefing for George W. Bush. This document, known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update, was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House. The briefing’s cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days’ war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death.”

This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. On March 31, a U.S. tank roared through the desert beneath a quote from Ephesians: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” On April 7, Saddam Hussein struck a dictatorial pose, under this passage from the First Epistle of Peter: “It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.”

Much more here.

The picture that I'm getting from this release, as well as from the unfolding story about how torture techniques were approved, was that what we had for eight years was an amoral president, an inattentive wastrel for whom every day was a struggle against hitting the bottle again, with an addiction to Jesus replacing an addiction to liquor -- with Cheney and Rumsfeld as the front men. They fed his dependency with Crusades imagery to keep him -- not that he would have anyway -- from asking any questions about what they were doing. In case the "He tried to kill my daddy" issue didn't hold enough water, or the "If I get Saddam it means my dick is bigger than my daddy's" undercurrent didn't quite work, there was always a Crusade for Jesus to fall back on.

We don't want to go there? We don't want to look back and see what we allowed these people to do for eight years? We can't afford NOT to go there. We sold our national soul to these men because Americans were afraid. Penitence and reflection is the only way to get it back.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, March 03, 2009

...to always remind me of how close I came to danger."
Posted by Jill | 7:06 PM
As I continue to read about the extent to which the Bush Administration was prepared to use the 9/11 attacks to destroy everything this country stands for, I keep being reminded of the line that Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth I says about 1:30 into this final scene from the 1998 film Elizabeth:



There will always be voices who say that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are gone, and that we should not look back but look forward. But just as in this version of the fall of Lord Robert Dudley, Elizabeth keeps him around as a reminder of the treachery that she will always face, so must we never, ever forget just how close George W. Bush, who said on March 18, 2002 that we were attacked because "they hate our freedom", was prepared to take away more of our freedom than terrorists could ever dream possible:
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Department secretly gave the green light for the U.S. military to attack apartment buildings and office complexes inside the United States, deploy high-tech surveillance against U.S. citizens and potentially suspend First Amendment freedom-of-the-press rights in order to combat the terror threat, according to a memo released Monday.

Many of the actions discussed in the Oct. 23, 2001, memo to then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's chief lawyer, William Haynes, were never actually taken.

But the memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel—along with others made public for the first time Monday—illustrates with new details the extraordinary post-9/11 powers asserted by Bush administration lawyers. Those assertions ultimately led to such controversial policies as allowing the waterboarding of terror suspects and permitting warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens—steps that remain the subject of ongoing investigations by Congress and the Justice Department. The memo was co-written by John Yoo, at the time a deputy attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel. Yoo, now a professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, has emerged as one of the central figures in those ongoing investigations.

In perhaps the most surprising assertion, the Oct. 23, 2001, memo suggested the president could even suspend press freedoms if he concluded it was necessary to wage the war on terror. "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Yoo wrote in the memo entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activity Within the United States."

This claim was viewed as so extreme that it was essentially (and secretly) revoked—but not until October of last year, seven years after the memo was written and with barely three and a half months left in the Bush administration.


I suppose George Bush was still holding out hope that we would be attacked again and he could become the dictator he so clearly wanted to be. And once it became clear that any attack would be viewed as a false flag operation by a sizable number of Americans, he had to revoke these rules rather than pass them on to be used by anyone else -- perhaps the one remotely redemptive thing his Administration did, even if their reasons for doing so were self-serving.

And today, while Rush Limbaugh freaks out on national television and Freepers become ever more irrational about Barack Obama every day, attributing to him the sinister motivations that we now know for certain motivated the previous Administration, we too must always keep George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their nefarious deeds at the front of our minds, to always remind us of how close we came to danger.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, February 17, 2009

While Republicans are styling themselves as the responsible guardians of the purse, where is their outrage over this?
Posted by Jill | 5:29 AM
They blanch at spending money to reconstruct the American economy, but when our government and its cronies were stuffing their pockets with taxpayer cash and telling us that it was for the reconstruction of Iraq, I didn't hear any Republicans squawking:
In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn (£88bn) in a US -directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff's notorious Ponzi scheme.

"I believe the real looting of Iraq after the invasion was by US officials and contractors, and not by people from the slums of Baghdad," said one US businessman active in Iraq since 2003.

In one case, auditors working for SIGIR discovered that $57.8m was sent in "pallet upon pallet of hundred-dollar bills" to the US comptroller for south-central Iraq, Robert J Stein Jr, who had himself photographed standing with the mound of money. He is among the few US officials who were in Iraq to be convicted of fraud and money-laundering.

Despite the vast sums expended on rebuilding by the US since 2003, there have been no cranes visible on the Baghdad skyline except those at work building a new US embassy and others rusting beside a half-built giant mosque that Saddam was constructing when he was overthrown. One of the few visible signs of government work on Baghdad's infrastructure is a tireless attention to planting palm trees and flowers in the centre strip between main roads. Those are then dug up and replanted a few months later.

Iraqi leaders are convinced that the theft or waste of huge sums of US and Iraqi government money could have happened only if senior US officials were themselves involved in the corruption. In 2004-05, the entire Iraq military procurement budget of $1.3bn was siphoned off from the Iraqi Defence Ministry in return for 28-year-old Soviet helicopters too obsolete to fly and armoured cars easily penetrated by rifle bullets. Iraqi officials were blamed for the theft, but US military officials were largely in control of the Defence Ministry at the time and must have been either highly negligent or participants in the fraud.

American federal investigators are now starting an inquiry into the actions of senior US officers involved in the programme to rebuild Iraq, according to The New York Times, which cites interviews with senior government officials and court documents. Court records reveal that, in January, investigators subpoenaed the bank records of Colonel Anthony B Bell, now retired from the US Army, but who was previously responsible for contracting for the reconstruction effort in 2003 and 2004. Two federal officials are cited by the paper as saying that investigators are also looking at the activities of Lieutenant-Colonel Ronald W Hirtle of the US Air Force, who was senior contracting officer in Baghdad in 2004.


As I write this, I'm watching Section 60, an HBO documentary about the part of Arlington National Cemetery where soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan are buried. I look at these families -- these mothers, fathers, wives, brothers, husbands, sisters; the children who will probably not be able to remember the parent who is gone once they too are grown. I'm listening to them talk about their children who only wanted to be soldiers, their children asking if the dead goldfish is now with Daddy, the wives wishing they could talk to their husbands just one more time. I look at these people who are guilty of nothing other than their belief in this country and their belief that their government is the caretaker of the symbols like the flag that they hold so dear. The Bush Administration took the trust of these people and took a giant, eight-year-long dump all over it because Dick Cheney is a ghoul who feeds on human souls and George W. Bush has father issues, and there are people in this country for whom a war based on nothing but lies meant an excuse to stuff their pockets.

The Bush Administration is gone now, but its toxic legacy lives on. And it will live on forever in the lives of these families shattered by a corrupt government that betrayed everything these people hold dear. It remains to be seen whether the Obama Administration can, or even wants to, extricate itself from George W. Bush's military adventures. But for these Americans buried in Section 60, their blood is on the previous Administration's hands. And while Congressional Republicans are as willing and eager to allow the nation to spiral down into economic ruin because they think it will help them regain power, somehow I don't think we're going to hear any outrage from them over the opportunism of American officials who paid their respect to the dead by stealing money meant for the reconstruction for which these Americans died.

CNN's Rick Sanchez points this out to a Republican fembot:


Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, January 21, 2009

It's worse than we ever imagined
Posted by Jill | 9:03 PM
I'll post the video as soon as it's available in the morning, for those who wanted to catch up on Lost before the season premiere and didn't catch former NSA agent and current whistleblower Russell Tice spilling the beans on Countdown about just how extensive the Bush Administration's mass surveillance of Americans' electronic activities was, and presumably still is.

What Tice is revealing, and he is expected to be on the show again tomorrow, shows a clear and pervasive violation of the Constitution -- yet another block put on the pile of Bush Administration corruption and lawbreaking, making it more difficult every day for the Democrats to "just look forward."

UPDATE: Watch:


Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, January 19, 2009

I do not like this one bit
Posted by Jill | 6:55 PM
I don't know about you, but I am going to be a nervous wreck tomorrow until this inauguration is over. And I am even more nervous after hearing about this:
If the unthinkable happens on Inauguration Day, Robert Gates, the defense secretary, will be available to assume the reins of government.

"In order to ensure continuity of government, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been designated by the outgoing Administration, with the concurrence of the incoming Administration, to serve as the designated successor during Inauguration Day, Tuesday, January 20th," White House press Secretary Dana Perino said.

[snip]

Perino said that Gates will be at a secure, undisclosed location on Inauguration Day, according to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller. Most of the others on the succession list, by contrast, will be participating in the inauguration festivities.


Note how it's the only member of the Bush Administration being asked to stay on who's the "designated successor."

I don't know about you, but I'm not putting the tinfoil chapeau back into the hatbox just yet.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, January 16, 2009

...bitter, bitter end (continued)
Posted by Jill | 9:02 PM
Is there some kind of contest as to how vile they can get before they leave town? Now, my good friend Tata is usually given to blogging about delicious cooking and fabulous decorating and about her highly colorful family and her Coolest Cats in the Known Universe. But you know that a politically-related story is important when Tata gets her umbrage on, and this one takes the proverbial cake:
The Bush Administration's Department of Justice announced Monday that they are suing the city of Gary, Indiana for discriminating against white people.



On Monday, the Justice Department announced a lawsuit against the Indiana city, alleging that six EMT technicians appear to have been hired on the basis of race alone in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- which was passed to combat discrimination against African Americans.



The suit alleges that the city told applicants that offers of employment would be based on the order they were ranked. But the city seems to have ignored their own ordering and instead hired several African American applicants who placed lower than the white applicants.



Each of the six who were hired ranked lower than the highest-ranking white applicant, the Justice Department wrote.



"Federal law guarantees equal access to employment opportunities without regard to race," said Grace Chung Becker, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a release. "The Department is committed to enforcing all the federal civil rights laws, including Title VII, under its jurisdiction."



Gary's corporate counsel, Hamilton Carmouche, told a local paper the list was prepared by the city's previous mayor, and gave preference to applicants who lived in Gary.



"We hire not on the basis of any race, but on the basis of residency," Carmouche said.



Use of the Civil Rights Act to protect against discrimination against whites is not unprecedented, but it is a novel tactic by the Bush Administration's lawyers.


One last blow for white privilege by the Bush Administration before the black people move into town, eh?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, January 14, 2009

It's all here
Posted by Jill | 5:02 AM
If you want to read exactly what we've been subjected to for the last eight years, and just how utterly lawless the Bush Administration has been, it's all here, in living, lurid black and white. (Note: This is a very long PDF file and may take a while to download.)

For all that I was as outraged as anyone when Barack Obama made the incomprehensible and ridiculous statement on Sunday that no one is above the law and yet we should look forward, I would hope that after reading this report (assuming he does), he would change his mind -- after the inauguration, that is, after there's no longer the possibility of George W. Bush issuing a blanket pardon to his entire administration.

But there are those who believe that you just don't move forward and forget about it when crimes of the magnitude of those committed by the Bush Administration are staring you right in the face. And the amusingly-named Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island is one of them:
"I think that there's a lot that remains to look at, and I appreciate that President Obama doesn't want to make it his purpose as a new president, with America in real distress in many directions, to go back and look at all this, but I think we in Congress have an independent responsibility, and I fully intend to discharge that responsibility,"


If you or I robbed a bank and then claimed it was to protect our families from eviction or foreclosure, or to get the money for medical care for our child because we have no insurance, we would not escape prosecution by claiming "family security", nor would we be able to stand before a judge and say "That's all in the past, I think it's more important to look toward the future." The Bush Administration shouldn't be able to either.

(h/t: ThinkProgress)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, January 11, 2009

Just wonderin', is all
Posted by Jill | 10:09 PM
If I were to, say, rob a bank (and no I'm not going to, this is for illustrative purposes only), and then say to a judge, "[W]e need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards", and expect that to mean I wouldn't be prosecuted, it would be considered the height of chutzpah, and said judge would throw the book at me.

So why whould the Bush Junta criminals be given that free pass, as Barack Obama indicated they will be today while George Snuffleupagus was doing his best Tim Russert imitation?

I was curious as to what Bob Fertik, whose specific question was the one quoted, had to say about Obama's bob-and-weave around the question of actually holding people responsible when they commit crimes, even if it means the Republicans Obama seems to hold more dear than the people who actually VOTED for him. Here's his reaction:
...it's absurd to talk about "upholding the Constitution" and say "no one is above the law" if you refuse to look "back" at those who have subverted the Constitution and broken the law.


And you can't have one set of rules for "national security" and a different set of rules for everything else; there is no "national security exception" in the oath President-elect Obama will swear on January 20 in front of the people of the United States and the world:



"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


So if there's any hope for prosecution in Obama's answer, it is that Attorney General Eric Holder will truly be "the people's lawyer" and fully represent us by prosecuting torturers, wiretappers, and other criminals who committed their crimes from secret undisclosed locations hidden within the Bush-Cheney administration.

But let's not leave this to chance. Let's all tell Attorney General Eric Holder what we want through a petition to Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor for Bush's crimes: http://www.democrats.com/special-prosecutor-for-bush-war-crimes




[snip]

Update 2: Glennzilla believes Obama's reference an independent evaluation by Eric Holder is nothing more than "lip service":

Worst of all, Obama (in response to Stephenapolous' asking him about the number one highest-voted question on Change.gov, first submitted by Bob Fertik) all but said that he does not want to pursue prosecutions for high-level lawbreakers in the Bush administration, twice repeating the standard Beltway mantra that "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" and "my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing." Obama didn't categorically rule out prosecutions -- he paid passing lip service to the pretty idea that "nobody is above the law," implied Eric Holder would have some role in making these decisions, and said "we're going to be looking at past practices" -- but he clearly intended to convey his emphatic view that he opposes "past-looking" investigations. In the U.S., high political officials aren't investigated, let alone held accountable, for lawbreaking, and that is rather clearly something Obama has no intention of changing.



I didn't expect Barack Obama to be any kind of raging liberal. His record and overall history of caution told me that. But I didn't expect him to all but echo the Nixon Doctrine that when the President does it, it is not illegal.

Perhaps he knows that the Republicans will try to impeach him if he so much as spills a drop of orange juice in the White House kitchen and he's figuring if he grants blanket immunity to the executive branch he can somehow forestall them from doing what they do best -- harassing Democratic presidents. Note to the new President: It won't.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, December 13, 2008

The Bushistas are stuffing their friends' pockets with taxpayer cash right up until the day they leave
Posted by Jill | 6:33 AM
And as far as this Administration is concerned, the president's need for secrecy outweighs any right you may have to know just where the money that YOU spent to bail out failing financial institutions went:
The Federal Reserve refused a request by Bloomberg News to disclose the recipients of more than $2 trillion of emergency loans from U.S. taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Bloomberg filed suit Nov. 7 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act requesting details about the terms of 11 Fed lending programs, most created during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

The Fed responded Dec. 8, saying it’s allowed to withhold internal memos as well as information about trade secrets and commercial information. The institution confirmed that a records search found 231 pages of documents pertaining to some of the requests.

“If they told us what they held, we would know the potential losses that the government may take and that’s what they don’t want us to know,” said Carlos Mendez, a senior managing director at New York-based ICP Capital LLC, which oversees $22 billion in assets.

[snip]

Congress is demanding more transparency from the Fed and Treasury on bailout, most recently during Dec. 10 hearings by the House Financial Services committee when Representative David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, said Americans had “been bamboozled.”

Bloomberg News, a unit of New York-based Bloomberg LP, on May 21 asked the Fed to provide data on collateral posted from April 4 to May 20. The central bank said on June 19 that it needed until July 3 to search documents and determine whether it would make them public. Bloomberg didn’t receive a formal response that would let it file an appeal within the legal time limit.

On Oct. 25, Bloomberg filed another request, expanding the range of when the collateral was posted. It filed suit Nov. 7.

In response to Bloomberg’s request, the Fed said the U.S. is facing “an unprecedented crisis” in which “loss in confidence in and between financial institutions can occur with lightning speed and devastating effects.”


The Administration bamoozled the American people. And this is a surprise...how? I don't know why Rep. Scott is so surprised. After all, this bunch has been lying to and stealing from the American people for eight years; why should they stop now? The problem now is that they have absolutely no problem with leaving a second Great Depression in their wake. After all, they got theirs, so the hell with everyone else.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, December 12, 2008

But after all, Jennifer Aniston posed naked and Oprah Winfrey is fat!
Posted by Jill | 6:49 AM
And Barack Obama is "tainted" by the Blagojevic scandal.

Such is the state of television news today, completely ignoring this:
A bipartisan panel of senators has concluded that former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials bear direct responsibility for the harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and that their decisions led to more serious abuses in Iraq and elsewhere.

In the most comprehensive critique by Congress of the military's interrogation practices, the Senate Armed Services Committee issued a report yesterday that accuses Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the authors and chief promoters of harsh interrogation policies that disgraced the nation and undermined U.S. security. The report, released by Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), contends that Pentagon officials later tried to create a false impression that the policies were unrelated to acts of detainee abuse committed by members of the military.

"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," the report states. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."

The report is the most direct refutation to date of the administration's rationale for using aggressive interrogation tactics -- that inflicting humiliation and pain on detainees was legal and effective, and helped protect the country. The 25-member panel, without one dissent among the 12 Republican members, declared the opposite to be true.


This is what in a sane world would be called "war crimes." And they would result in trials like those we saw at Nuremberg after World War II. But we don't live in a sane world. We live in a world of "some would say" and "Can't you see that man is a ni----?" and Jennifer and Oprah and Brad 'n' Angie.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving, suckers!!
Posted by Jill | 3:50 PM
Did you really expect the Bush Administration to go quietly?

Federal authorities are warning police of a possible terror plot against the New York City subway and train systems during the holiday season, prompting local officials to beef up security at stations. An internal memo obtained by The Associated Press says the FBI has received a "plausible but unsubstantiated" report that al-Qaida terrorists in late September may have discussed attacking the subway system.

A person briefed on the matter, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the intelligence-gathering work, said the threat may also be directed at the passenger rail lines running through New York, such as Amtrak and the Long Island Rail Road, which are particularly busy with Thanksgiving holiday travelers.

A U.S. counterterror official, also speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to do so publicly, said senior government officials have been briefed because the FBI very recently received credible information about possible attacks over the holiday season, and authorities are particularly concerned about this long holiday weekend.


Yes, folks, here we go again.

Time, June 27, 2004
:
As the July 4 holiday approaches, Bush Administration officials are bombarding the nation's police, fire, emergency and corporate-security offices with another round of terrorism warnings. Although there are no plans to raise the threat level from yellow to orange, a senior Justice Department official says, "there's very serious intelligence that's corroborated, that's multiple sourced, that indicates that al-Qaeda is intent on hitting us and hitting us hard this year." The official concedes, however, that "we don't have specific information."

Along with this now familiar general warning, the FBI has introduced the specter of a new terrorism threat: booby-trapped beer coolers. A lightly classified bulletin sent to 18,000 state and local agencies last week advised local authorities to look out for plastic-foam containers, inner tubes and other waterborne flotsam commonly seen around marinas that could be rigged to blow up on contact. Also, the bulletin warned, terrorists might attach bombs to buoys. FBI and Department of Homeland Security officials say no such devices have actually been discovered, nor is there any current intelligence that terrorists are hatching plots involving floating bombs. But some officials believe al-Qaeda may be focusing on harbors and shipping channels in an effort to replicate the success of the October 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in the port of Aden, in which suicide bombers used a small launch laden with explosives to rip a 40-ft. hole in the warship's hull, killing 17 sailors.


CNN, 21/21/2003 (via the East Carolinian):
The Department of Homeland Security raised the U.S. terror threat level from elevated to high Sunday, warning of possible terrorist strikes more devastating than the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said the move was the result of a "substantial increase" in the volume of intelligence pointing to "near-term attacks that could either rival or exceed what we experienced on September 11."

Ridge urged the public to be patient with stricter security measures "in the coming days and weeks" and to proceed with holiday plans despite the threat.

"America is a country that will not be bent by terror," he said.

A senior administration official familiar with the decision said the volume of threats was "significantly higher" and was coming from known sources but that there was "nothing site-specific."

Top officials discussed the matter among themselves and with President Bush for several days. The intelligence "reached the level at which we felt this is [the] right decision, to ramp up in time for [the] holidays," the senior administration official said.


I guess Keith Olbermann will have to update his "nexus of politics and terror":




I just have one question: If George W. Bush has kept us safe, why do they need to try to scare people right before the holidays? Whether Bush likes it or not, he's still in charge until January 20.

The timing of yet another "nonspecific" warning to which we shouldn't react with alarm, right before a holiday, coinciding with today's horrific attacks in Mumbai, and fast on the heels of media scrutiny given to the bailout of Citigroup, done on the weekend when no one was paying attention and right after one of Bush's Saudi buddies took a bigger stake in the company, is all too reminiscent of threats the Bushistas have done in the past when their doings were drawing attention.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, November 25, 2008

So why DID we just throw a truckload of money at Citigroup then?
Posted by Jill | 5:19 AM
Did the Bush Administration just shovel a ton of taxpayer money at Citigroup in order to shore up an investment for his Saudi pals? It sure looks that way.

I don't recall seeing or reading anywhere in the American mainstream media last week that Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal had invested $349 million in the ailing banking giant, did you?

The Guardian, Thursday, November 20:
Saudi Arabian prince Alwaleed bin Talal has come to the rescue of Citigroup with a much-needed cash injection today.

The surprise turnaround ended a two-year selloff that has wiped more than $200bn (£135bn) from the bank's market value.

The Saudi prince will increase his stake from about 4 to 5% in the coming days.

The move initially filled investors with confidence and sparked a buying spree before the bell. The shares surged 25 cents to $6.65, but then fell back to tumble by another 17.5%. Yesterday, they fell more than 22% in a single session while the stock is down more than 90% since 2006.

Based on Wednesday evening's closing price, the prince plans to invest about $349m of his fortune in Citigroup shares.

In a statement released at 9am in New York, Talal said he believed Citi's shares were "dramatically undervalued" and expressed "full and complete support to Citi management" including the embattled chief executive, Vikram Pandit.

He said the New York-based bank was "taking all the necessary steps to position the company to withstand the challenges facing the banking industry and the global economy".

Talal said he was "fully confident that Citigroup's universal banking model and global franchise will make it a long-term winner in the financial services industry".


Then suddenly, over the weekend when everyone is watching football and crowding the supermarkets buying turkey and cranberries, suddenly out of nowhere the Fed pumps $20 billion into the company, and lo and behold, on Monday the company's stock rises over 57 percent. Not a bad one-day haul for Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

But then, George W. Bush has always taken good care of his Saudi friends, even at the expense of, oh, say, almost 3000 people's lives on a sunny day in September seven years ago.

Bin Talal owns five percent of Citigroup. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority took a 4.9% stake almost exactly a year ago.

But aside from helping one of Bush's Saudi buddies get a nice one-day return on his money, will the Citigroup bailout help stabilize the financial markets? We can has recovery now?

Hardly:
In the short term, the latest effort to steady Citigroup has removed the risk that a sudden failure of the giant bank would send losses cascading through the financial industry.

But longer term, the new bailout could haunt regulators and taxpayers. The move ultimately may encourage banks to take more risks in the belief that the government will step in if they run into trouble.

With a recession looming, if not here already, banks big and small are bracing for more loans to sour, particularly those related to commercial real estate, autos and credit cards. Many are making fewer loans, even though the industry has received nearly $300 billion from the government.

Before long, anxious investors may start wondering which banks will be vulnerable next. If confidence fades, other big lenders will probably seek deals like Citigroup’s, in which the government has pledged to pick up potentially $290 billion in additional losses. Regulators drafted the plan with an eye to using it as a template for future bailouts.

There are other worries for Citigroup’s big rivals. Almost overnight, Citigroup went from being the sick man of the industry to an institution with an edge over its competitors. The government is guaranteeing $250 billion of risky assets and pumping an additional $20 billion into the bank.

With the government behind it, Citigroup may now be able to borrow money in the capital markets at lower interest rates than its peers.

“Citi has a decided advantage over them because of the loss-sharing agreement,” said John Kanas, the former chief executive of North Fork Bank of Long Island. While banks may hold out for now, it may be only a matter of time before they too line up, several analysts said.


And at least until January 20, the question of whether the Bush Administration puts some coin in their tin cup will depend on whether they have Bush cronies like the Saudi royal family as major shareholders. But then, it was always thus with this administration.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, November 15, 2008

And yet something ELSE the Bush Administration has screwed up
Posted by Jill | 5:52 AM
After George W. Bush turns over the keys on January 20 after holding an eight-year-long kegger and wrecking the joint, some far more intrepid soul than I will have to put together a compendium of everything this man has botched during his eight years in office.

I heard about this on Errol Louis' radio show here in New York yesterday and while I wish I could say I couldn't believe it, given this Administration's track record, it just seemed like more par for the course:
Shawn Nguyen bragged that he could sneak anything past airport security using his top-secret clearance as a federal air marshal. And for months, he smuggled cocaine and drug money onto flights across the country, boasting to an FBI informant that he was "the man with the golden badge."

Michael McGowan used his position as an air marshal to lure a young boy to his hotel room, where he showed him child porn, took pictures of him naked and sexually abused him.

And when Brian "Cooter" Phelps wanted his ex-wife to disappear, he called a fellow air marshal and tried to hire a hit man nicknamed "the Crucifixer."

Since 9/11, more than three dozen federal air marshals have been charged with crimes, and hundreds more have been accused of misconduct, an investigation by ProPublica has found. Cases range from drunken driving and domestic violence to aiding a human trafficking ring and trying to smuggle explosives from Afghanistan.

The Federal Air Marshal Service presents the image of an elite undercover force charged with making split-second decisions that could mean the difference between stopping a terrorist and shooting an innocent passenger.

But an examination of police reports, court records, government reports, memos and e-mails shows that 18 air marshals have been charged with felonies, including at least three who were hired despite prior criminal records or being fired from law enforcement jobs. A fourth air marshal was hired while under FBI investigation. Another stayed on the job despite alarming a flight attendant with his behavior.


If you think that having federal air marshals on flights is keeping you safe from terrorst hijackings, you'd better go read the whole thing and guess again.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, October 27, 2008

October Surprise
Posted by Jill | 5:00 AM
Well, you knew it was going to be something. Last time it was a message from Osama Bin Laden conveniently timed to help the then-embattled George W. Bush win re-election. This time it's an expansion of Bush's War into Syria:
U.S. military helicopters launched an extremely rare attack Sunday on Syrian territory close to the border with Iraq, killing eight people in a strike the government in Damascus condemned as "serious aggression."

A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq. The Americans have been unable to shut the network down in the area struck because Syria was out of the military's reach.

"We are taking matters into our own hands," the official told The Associated Press in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of cross-border raids.

The attack came just days after the commander of U.S. forces in western Iraq said American troops were redoubling efforts to secure the Syrian border, which he called an "uncontrolled" gateway for fighters entering Iraq.

A Syrian government statement said the helicopters attacked the Sukkariyeh Farm near the town of Abu Kamal, five miles inside the Syrian border. Four helicopters attacked a civilian building under construction shortly before sundown and fired on workers inside, the statement said.

The government said civilians were among the dead, including four children.


I'm not sure if this is supposed to help John McCain by playing to the delusion that far too many Americans have that Senator Bomb Bomb Iran is somehow stronger on foreign policy and national security and refocusing attention on the Middle East instead of pocketbook issues, or if it's designed to do the presidential equivalent of burning Tara and sowing every acre with salt before allowing Jonas Wilkerson and Emmie Slattery to live there. Regardless of the motivation, the end result is that if, as it appears barring continued voting machine vote-flipping in swing states, a successful effort by the Justice Department to overturn the Supreme Court's decision on Ohio voter registration, and successful suppression of new voters, Barack Obama wins this election, the Bush Administration is bound and determined to exit with far more mischief than pulling keys off of computer keyboards.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Saturday, October 25, 2008

Bush Administration signals it will intervene in election if necessary
Posted by Jill | 6:30 AM
I guess the Bush Administration has interpreted the Constitution to provide for the King...uh..."president"...to appoint his successor regardless of pesky things like voters:
President Bush is asking the Justice Department to look into whether 200,000 Buckeye State poll-goers must use provisional ballots on Election Day because their names do not match state databases.

White House spokesman Carlton Carroll confirmed Friday that the president will forward a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey from House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), requesting that the Justice Department look into whether the state’s voter rolls comply with the Help America Vote Act.

In a letter dated on Friday, the House GOP leader wrote that with Election Day “less than two weeks away, immediate action by the Department is not only warranted, but also crucial.”

“I respectfully request that you use your authority to direct Attorney General Michael Mukasey and the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate these actions and direct the appropriate authorities in each state to comply with the Section 303 requirements of HAVA,” Boehner wrote.

“Unless action is taken by the Department immediately, thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of names whose information has not been verified through the HAVA procedures mandated by Congress will remain on voter rolls during the November 4, 2008 election; and there is a significant risk — if not a certainty, that unlawful votes will be cast and counted.”


Meanwhile, U.S. attorneys have been fired for not investigating so-called "voter fraud" that never existed, and not once has any of these Republicans who think that "Help America Vote" only applies to what they regard as "Real America" (read: REPUBLICAN America) ever cited even ONE actual case since they started braying about "voter fraud" in 2000, of anyone who wasn't registered or who wasn't eligible to vote actually succeeding in voting. This is a manufactured "issue" designed to play into the fears of Red America about hordes of brown-skinned people flocking to the polls to vote their own interests instead of the interests of White America™ -- as if people's interests somehow diverge with skin color.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, October 19, 2008

But there's plenty of money to investigate ACORN
Posted by Jill | 12:42 PM
The priorities of the Bush Administration: no probes of the financial meltdown, but plenty of the vast resources of the United States Justice Department to turn loose on ACORN because some of its $8/hour workers falsified voter registrations, which ACORN then flagged as dubious before sending them along AS REQUIRED BY LAW:
The FBI, after years spent focusing on national security, is struggling to find agents and resources to investigate wrongdoing tied to the country's economic crisis, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

Citing current and former FBI officials, the Times said cutbacks in its criminal investigative workforce following the September 11 attacks left the FBI weaker in areas like white collar crime.

The cutbacks were the result of a shift in focus to terrorism and intelligence matters. More than 1,800 agents, or nearly one-third of all those in criminal programs, moved into those areas, the Times said.

"Clearly, we have felt the effects of moving resources from criminal investigations to national security," the newspaper quoted FBI Assistant Director John Miller as saying. "In white collar crime, while we initiated fewer cases over all, we targeted the areas where we could have the biggest impact. We focused on multimillion-dollar corporate fraud, where we could make arrests but also recover money for the fraud victims."

While the FBI plans to double the number of agents working on financial crimes, people within and outside the Justice Department question where the agents will come from and whether that will suffice, the Times said.

Records and interviews show that FBI officials have warned of a looming mortgage threat since 2004, and asked the Bush administration to fund such nonterrorism investigations, but the requests were denied and no new agents were approved for financial criminal investigation work, the newspaper said.

Internal FBI data shows the cutbacks were especially sharp in areas of white collar crime like mortgage fraud, with more than 600 agents lost, or more than one-third of 2001 levels.

According to Justice Department data, fraud prosecutions directed at financial institutions dropped by nearly one-half from 2000 to 2007, insurance fraud cases fell 75 percent and securities fraud decreased by 17 percent, the Times said.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share