"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
Saturday, June 27, 2009

Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Posted by Jill | 9:32 AM
I just didn't think it would happen this quickly:
Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

Look, I understand the dilemma. I understand that by utilizing torture, the Bush Administration created evidence against some of the people held at Guantanamo Bay that cannot be used under the system of justice we claim to utilize in the U.S. But does Barack Obama really believe that embracing the Bush Administration's power grab to incarcerate anyone, at any time, for any reason, under the cover of "war", is "change we can believe in" and that it's going to "keep us safe"?

Either we're better than the government of Iran or we aren't. And if we aren't, then let's throw this notion of "change" out the window and stop this crap about how America is so special and some kind of moral beacon for the rst of the world.

And by the way, in case Barack Obama doesn't know it yet, the very same wingnuts who ignored the destruction of habeas corpus under the Bush Administration are suddenly going to find it objectionable and a Threat to the Republic now that a Democrat has embraced it. So if he thinks this is a way to curry favor with Republicans, he'd better guess again. And if the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss, then we might as well sit on our hands in 2012 and let Sarah Palin become President. Because what the hell's the difference?

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, June 29, 2008

Who the hell in Congress authorized this?
Posted by Jill | 8:43 PM
The expansion of the war into Iran is approaching:

The Bush administration has launched a "significant escalation" of covert operations in Iran, sending U.S. commandos to spy on the country's nuclear facilities and undermine the Islamic republic's government, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

White House, CIA and State Department officials declined comment on Hersh's report, which appears in this week's issue of The New Yorker.

Hersh told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that Congress has authorized up to $400 million to fund the secret campaign, which involves U.S. special operations troops and Iranian dissidents.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and "do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program," Hersh said.

"They believe that their mission is to make sure that before they get out of office next year, either Iran is attacked or it stops its weapons program," Hersh said.

The new article, "Preparing the Battlefield," is the latest in a series of articles accusing the Bush administration of preparing for war with Iran.

He based the report on accounts from current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. Watch Hersh discuss what he says are the administration's plans for Iran

"As usual with his quarterly pieces, we'll decline to comment," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told CNN.


More, including video, at Crooks and Liars.

Sy Hersh's article is here. So in answer to my question, yes, Virginia, the fucking weasel Democrats sold us down the river again:

“The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said.

Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.

The request for funding came in the same period in which the Administration was coming to terms with a National Intelligence Estimate, released in December, that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The Administration downplayed the significance of the N.I.E., and, while saying that it was committed to diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to counter the Iranian nuclear threat. President Bush questioned the N.I.E.’s conclusions, and senior national-security officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, made similar statements. (So did Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee.) Meanwhile, the Administration also revived charges that the Iranian leadership has been involved in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq: both directly, by dispatching commando units into Iraq, and indirectly, by supplying materials used for roadside bombs and other lethal goods. (There have been questions about the accuracy of the claims; the Times, among others, has reported that “significant uncertainties remain about the extent of that involvement.”)

[snip]

Senior Democrats in Congress told me that they had concerns about the possibility that their understanding of what the new operations entail differs from the White House’s. One issue has to do with a reference in the Finding, the person familiar with it recalled, to potential defensive lethal action by U.S. operatives in Iran. (In early May, the journalist Andrew Cockburn published elements of the Finding in Counterpunch, a newsletter and online magazine.)

The language was inserted into the Finding at the urging of the C.I.A., a former senior intelligence official said. The covert operations set forth in the Finding essentially run parallel to those of a secret military task force, now operating in Iran, that is under the control of JSOC. Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference.


And they gave him Congressional cover anyway. Unbefuckinglievable.



The defensive-lethal language led some Democrats, according to congressional sources familiar with their views, to call in the director of the C.I.A., Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, for a special briefing. Hayden reassured the legislators that the language did nothing more than provide authority for Special Forces operatives on the ground in Iran to shoot their way out if they faced capture or harm.

The legislators were far from convinced. One congressman subsequently wrote a personal letter to President Bush insisting that “no lethal action, period” had been authorized within Iran’s borders. As of June, he had received no answer.


Wonderful. Another "sternly worded letter." Like that's ever done a lot of good with this bunch of criminals.

On March 15, 2005, David Obey, then the ranking Democrat on the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, announced that he was putting aside an amendment that he had intended to offer that day, and that would have cut off all funding for national-intelligence programs unless the President agreed to keep Congress fully informed about clandestine military activities undertaken in the war on terror. He had changed his mind, he said, because the White House promised better coöperation. “The Executive Branch understands that we are not trying to dictate what they do,” he said in a floor speech at the time. “We are simply trying to see to it that what they do is consistent with American values and will not get the country in trouble.”

Obey declined to comment on the specifics of the operations in Iran, but he did tell me that the White House reneged on its promise to consult more fully with Congress. He said, “I suspect there’s something going on, but I don’t know what to believe. Cheney has always wanted to go after Iran, and if he had more time he’d find a way to do it. We still don’t get enough information from the agencies, and I have very little confidence that they give us information on the edge.”


Figure that out all by yourself, Einstein? So why the fuck did you give these people authorization to do this?

None of the four Democrats in the Gang of Eight—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, and House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes—would comment on the Finding, with some noting that it was highly classified. An aide to one member of the Democratic leadership responded, on his behalf, by pointing to the limitations of the Gang of Eight process. The notification of a Finding, the aide said, “is just that—notification, and not a sign-off on activities. Proper oversight of ongoing intelligence activities is done by fully briefing the members of the intelligence committee.” However, Congress does have the means to challenge the White House once it has been sent a Finding. It has the power to withhold funding for any government operation. The members of the House and Senate Democratic leadership who have access to the Finding can also, if they choose to do so, and if they have shared concerns, come up with ways to exert their influence on Administration policy. (A spokesman for the C.I.A. said, “As a rule, we don’t comment one way or the other on allegations of covert activities or purported findings.” The White House also declined to comment.)

A member of the House Appropriations Committee acknowledged that, even with a Democratic victory in November, “it will take another year before we get the intelligence activities under control.” He went on, “We control the money and they can’t do anything without the money. Money is what it’s all about. But I’m very leery of this Administration.” He added, “This Administration has been so secretive.”


But THEY GAVE THIS ADMINISTRATION THE FUCKING MONEY TO DO THIS ANYWAY.

I don't even know what to say. It isn't that I didn't know that Our Democratic Party was a bunch of craven, weak-kneed pushovers. It isn't that I didn't know that they work for the same corporate masters that the Republicans do, only they don't even have enough self-respect to ask for the big bucks, being content instead to settle for the scraps left over after the Republicans have gorged themselves till their buttons are popping.

Why the fuck are we even bothering to participate in this charade of an election, when our own party has told us that there is absolutely zero air space between themselves and the Republican agenda of police state and bankrupting the country through endless war? What the fuck's the point?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Because there just aren't enough hours in the day
Posted by Jill | 8:53 PM
Sometimes I think it's me; that I just don't do a good job managing time. I look at people who are on top of a story the minute it hits, and I wonder how they do it. I know that some of the Big Boiz make a living (such as it is) from advertising, but there are plenty of us out here who work Real Jobs and have lives and marriages and some have kids and other things that we do other than blog.

But it seems sometimes that others have a much easier time keeping on top of what's going on. It's not that my life has so many demands. I don't have kids that need help with their homework and rides to soccer practice. I'm an indifferent housekeeper at best. I don't have a long commute; at most it's 25 minutes. And yet most days, if I don't get with a story in the morning, I don't cover it till the next day.

It isn't that I sit staring off into space. I get up most mornings at 5:30 AM, have coffee and spend about eight minutes with Mr. Brilliant before he heads off for work. Then I have an hour and a half in which to read what's going on in the world, decide what to write about, and try to dash off 2-3 posts before either going for a walk or doing a half-hour of yoga before getting ready for work. I'm home by 6 PM, make dinner, clean up, watch Olbermann with Mr. B. and then either collapse into an unconscious heap or grab a few minutes of blog time -- which is what I'm doing now, when I should be working on my new template.

So those of you who DO manage to cover the news comprehensively and hold down a job, how the heck do you do it?

Tonight I really can't complain about the Democrats. Yes, the Webb Amendment was defeated, despite Olympia Snowe, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith daring to risk the Wrath of the Bush Junta by voting with the Democrats in an effort to do the right thing. It's sad and it's tragic for the troops -- the soldiers being worn down to nothing by a president who cares only about trying to save his own legacy. But every Democrat plus Bernie Sanders did the right thing today in voting for the measure. Holy Joe Lieberman, of course, voted to continue to break the military, but that's expected of that particular piece of human excrement that continues to occupy the junior Senator seat from the great state of Connecticut.

But the important thing is that with this vote, the Democrats made sure that at least for now, Republicans own this war. That idiot Lindsey Graham (cue Sam Seder's sound clip of a closet door) blathered "The idea of winning the war in Iraq is beginning to get a second look." Then what the fuck have we been doing over there for four years? How many times does George W. Bush get a "do-over" in this war, using the blood of other people's children? I don't know who is giving "the idea of winning the war in Iraq a second look", when according to the latest Zogby poll, Captain Codpiece is sitting with a 29% approval rating overall and a 73% disapproval rating of the way he conducts his foreign policy; and in the latest USA Today/Gallup poll has 59% of Americans favoring a timetable for withdrawal. Still -- the Democrats did what they had to do: stand up for doing right by the soldiers fighting this war and dump their exploitation right in the laps of the Republicans. Call it stagecraft if you like, call it political posturing. If the Democrats don't have the votes to end this war, they sure as hell DO have enough votes to make damn sure that the Republicans who continue to support squandering America's future in Iraq have to take responsibility for what they support.

Similarly, the Leahy/Specter amendment to restore habeas corpus failed by four votes. That Republicans who claim to stand for the rule of law voted this down is even more disheartening, especially after a day that saw a college kid busted and tasered for the crime of being a pain in the ass. Americans are beginning...slowly...to recognize what the loss of civil liberties means. Whether it's enough to forestall the kind of police state for which the Bush Administration clearly salivates at the mere prospect remains to be seen. But again: if you don't have the votes, while it still matters that you didn't win, at least you made sure that it's Republicans that defecated on the Constitution, and it's Republicans who believe that nineteen guys with box cutters are enough to overturn not just the Constitution but the Magna Carta.

In making the Republicans own, as a party in its entirety, all of the most insane and egregious of the power-mad Bush Administration's policies, at the very least, it makes clear what voters' choices are going to be next year.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share