Darrell Issa, Republican Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is hot on the trail of the crime of the century. His investigators have determined that Obama's minions misled the American People about the nature of the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi Libya (9/11/2012). For example, Obama's spinners used the phrase "terror attacks" instead of "attacks by terrorists" to make it seem that organizations like Al-Qaeda were not involved. I'm sure that this distinction carried great weight among the American People, accustomed as they are to the subtleties of beer commercials...
Of course, it is highly likely that the Obama folks, like all politicians, engaged in some of the spinning with which they are charged. The folks who promised to close Gitmo and swore they'd never touch Social Security don't have a very strong track record on strict adherence to facts and principles. Nevertheless, in spite of Fox News's breathless claims about a crime far exceeding (even) Watergate, there is absolutely no claim, much less evidence, that any sort of illegality or even major misrepresentation took place; this piece from the NY Daily News (not a bastion of liberalism) gives some idea of the silliness of Fox/conservative hyperbole and why it's nonsense. Let's not forget that Watergate, Iran-Contra the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia violated all sorts of laws. The folks who gave us the Clinton impeachment would love to pull off another courageous act of patriotism, saving us from being mislead by a usurping black man.
Darrell Issa himself has probably committed more criminal acts than even he dares claim were committed by the Obama administration: You can read a an extensively documented account of the legal history this petty-thug-turned-congressman here, and in the fine New Yorker profile of Issa here.
I'm not an Obama worshiper, or even a committed Democrat, but the Republicans remain beneath contempt both in comparison and from an absolute standpoint.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
The FBI and terrorism
Things are seldom as they "seem". One of my least favorite Senators from one of my least favorite states, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is currently on the FBI's case as it were, because the agency failed to follow up tips about the Tsarnaev brothers -- and about Tamerlan (the older) brother's trip to Russia last year.
The Web-based news and opinion source Talking Points Memo (TPM) has an interview with a "former FBI executive", who claims that the FBI did all it could, legally, given the level of the information provided by Russian intelligence and the negative results of its preliminary investigation.
That may very well be true, but there is more to it than that. First of all, while I'm sure that Lindsey Graham has patriotic interests at heart, he is also a relentless foe of the Obama administration and all of its agency appointments. For example, he was a leading opponent of Att. Gen. Holder's botched "Fast and Furious" gun-running would-be sting, as well as a point-man on the Republican brouhaha over the Benghazi attack; he has also been a dependable critic of Obamacare, etc. However, he is in somewhat of a bind, since he obviously wants to discredit the Obama part of the FBI without discrediting the FBI itself, which has always been a Republican sacred cow. So, the latest from Graham is that, yes the FBI did all it could within the laws regulating its activities: but that just shows that the laws reining in the Bureau probably need to be changed. He said: “It’s people like this [the Tsarnaev brothers] that you don’t want to let out of your sight, and this was a mistake. I don’t know if our laws were inefficient or if the FBI failed, but we’re at war with radical Islamists and we need to up our game.” In other words, unleash the FBI (from pantywaist liberal restrictions). And, just to reinforce that he's the same old Lindsey Graham, he added: “I think anyone who is on the terrorist watch list shouldn’t lose their Second Amendment right." Yes, there are just some things that are more important than protecting Americans from terrorism, and owning an AK47-type assault weapon with a large capacity clip is surely one of them Graham and his South Carolina constituency.
Of course, it's not just Lindsey Graham: the U.S. oil industry has had a long history with countries in the Caucasus region of Asia. From the Stalinist era until the breakup of the former Soviet Union, America used this historicall anti-Soviet region in an attempt to block the USSR's access to Caspian Sea oil. Although we did nothing to help millions of Chechens who were brutally dispersed by the Soviets, we were -- at least secretly -- happy to see their terrorist acts against Moscow. In the case of the Afghanis we were more open, sending arms and money to the groups that later became AlQaeda, and the Taliban, and leaders that included Osama bin Laden. More recently, however, Chechen (and other) terrorists have threatened Caspian Sea pipelines developed by Russian and American oil companies; thus, some of our sympathies have changed.
So the attitude of the FBI and of the political leadership is surely ambivalent. Relations between the U.S. and Russia are not particularly good at this point, so a "tip" about terrorists from ex-KGB honcho Putin is taken with a liberal grain of salt; yet, practically, we can't allow Chechen hatred of Russia and its perceived "western allies" to spread Chechen terrorism to the U.S. or even more importantly, to endanger Caspian Sea pipelines partially bankrolled by U.S. oil interests.
There are a lot of political currents roiling under the surface of the "War on Terror" and the use of the CIA and the FBI as its instruments.
The Web-based news and opinion source Talking Points Memo (TPM) has an interview with a "former FBI executive", who claims that the FBI did all it could, legally, given the level of the information provided by Russian intelligence and the negative results of its preliminary investigation.
That may very well be true, but there is more to it than that. First of all, while I'm sure that Lindsey Graham has patriotic interests at heart, he is also a relentless foe of the Obama administration and all of its agency appointments. For example, he was a leading opponent of Att. Gen. Holder's botched "Fast and Furious" gun-running would-be sting, as well as a point-man on the Republican brouhaha over the Benghazi attack; he has also been a dependable critic of Obamacare, etc. However, he is in somewhat of a bind, since he obviously wants to discredit the Obama part of the FBI without discrediting the FBI itself, which has always been a Republican sacred cow. So, the latest from Graham is that, yes the FBI did all it could within the laws regulating its activities: but that just shows that the laws reining in the Bureau probably need to be changed. He said: “It’s people like this [the Tsarnaev brothers] that you don’t want to let out of your sight, and this was a mistake. I don’t know if our laws were inefficient or if the FBI failed, but we’re at war with radical Islamists and we need to up our game.” In other words, unleash the FBI (from pantywaist liberal restrictions). And, just to reinforce that he's the same old Lindsey Graham, he added: “I think anyone who is on the terrorist watch list shouldn’t lose their Second Amendment right." Yes, there are just some things that are more important than protecting Americans from terrorism, and owning an AK47-type assault weapon with a large capacity clip is surely one of them Graham and his South Carolina constituency.
Of course, it's not just Lindsey Graham: the U.S. oil industry has had a long history with countries in the Caucasus region of Asia. From the Stalinist era until the breakup of the former Soviet Union, America used this historicall anti-Soviet region in an attempt to block the USSR's access to Caspian Sea oil. Although we did nothing to help millions of Chechens who were brutally dispersed by the Soviets, we were -- at least secretly -- happy to see their terrorist acts against Moscow. In the case of the Afghanis we were more open, sending arms and money to the groups that later became AlQaeda, and the Taliban, and leaders that included Osama bin Laden. More recently, however, Chechen (and other) terrorists have threatened Caspian Sea pipelines developed by Russian and American oil companies; thus, some of our sympathies have changed.
So the attitude of the FBI and of the political leadership is surely ambivalent. Relations between the U.S. and Russia are not particularly good at this point, so a "tip" about terrorists from ex-KGB honcho Putin is taken with a liberal grain of salt; yet, practically, we can't allow Chechen hatred of Russia and its perceived "western allies" to spread Chechen terrorism to the U.S. or even more importantly, to endanger Caspian Sea pipelines partially bankrolled by U.S. oil interests.
There are a lot of political currents roiling under the surface of the "War on Terror" and the use of the CIA and the FBI as its instruments.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Mark Sanford:The man who doesn't get it
After showing up at his ex-wife Jenny's house while she was away -- violating his divorce settlement -- Sanford was charged by her with trespassing. Here's what he had to say:
"I did indeed watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14-year-old son because as a father I didn't think he should watch it alone."
I can understand: having to watch any part of the Super Bowl alone is one of the worst things that can happen to a 14-year-old -- perhaps even worse than his dad misappropriating South Carolina funds to leave the state under false pretenses and cheat on the boy's mother, then being forced to resign his governorship in (temporary) disgrace.
The guy still thinks that his ex adores him. After all, even though he is now engaged to his "soul mate Maria", Jenny undoubtedly still wants to cook and clean for him the way any loyal Carolina wife would -- he even asked her to manage his campaign. I seem to recall that she declined the honor.
Ah yes, another star in the family-valued firmament of the Republican South.
They just can't seem to get their massage across.
"I did indeed watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14-year-old son because as a father I didn't think he should watch it alone."
I can understand: having to watch any part of the Super Bowl alone is one of the worst things that can happen to a 14-year-old -- perhaps even worse than his dad misappropriating South Carolina funds to leave the state under false pretenses and cheat on the boy's mother, then being forced to resign his governorship in (temporary) disgrace.
The guy still thinks that his ex adores him. After all, even though he is now engaged to his "soul mate Maria", Jenny undoubtedly still wants to cook and clean for him the way any loyal Carolina wife would -- he even asked her to manage his campaign. I seem to recall that she declined the honor.
Ah yes, another star in the family-valued firmament of the Republican South.
They just can't seem to get their massage across.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Why the Party for The Rich (formerly GOP) hates Elizabeth Warren
Here is Warren incredulous at how so-called bank regulators protect the banks and disdain the public:
(Thanks Mike for forwarding this to me.)
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Mark Sanford redux
My very first blog, June 29, 2009 was a satire on Governor Mark Sanford's visit to his Argentinian mistress, disguised as a trip along the "Appalachian Trial". I was my only intentional attempt at humor, and depended to some extent on his gauzy descriptions of his affair and some e-mails of his that were somehow released. Today, Gail Collins revisits some of that Affair to Remember in her Times column -- in honor of Sanford's redemption as the Republican candidate for his former congressional seat. Collins, as a humorist, is the real thing.
Anyway, just for old times sake, and because it is short and I'm lazy, here's my first blog:
New details have come out about "l'Affaire Sanford": the relationship
between Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina and his Argentinian
paramour, now identified as Maria Belen Chapur. Recently pirated e-mails
from both parties seem to tie Sanford's indiscretions with those of
another Governor, Eliot Spitzer of New York.
It seems that both men were seeking forbidden positions during sex-play. Spitzer's predilections have already been the source of explicit speculation, but up to now Gov. Sanford's have been a total mystery. However, fairly clear descriptions are contained in the following excerpts.
(FROM SANFORD) Dearest Maria, you know by now what I like and what my good wife can't or won't give me: certain, shall we say "positions", that I dare not mention but dare to hope for.
(FROM BELEN CHAPUR) Oh Mark my dear, how could I withhold from you what you secretly wanted all these years. The sanctity of love makes all holy, even those positions which you dared not name. At our last tryst I completely opened myself to you and poured what you so wanted over your trembling body: "Single payer healthcare", "Higher income-tax brackets", "World government" and, and ... oh so much more. You needed it; I needed it.
(FROM SANFORD): Oh, the erotic beauty of you holding, yourself, those magnificent positions that have been held, also, by others - but hey, that would be going across the aisle.
[Of course, "Pontifax News" does not exist: it is an inside joke.]
Anyway, just for old times sake, and because it is short and I'm lazy, here's my first blog:
Latest on Sanford e-mails from Pontifax news
It seems that both men were seeking forbidden positions during sex-play. Spitzer's predilections have already been the source of explicit speculation, but up to now Gov. Sanford's have been a total mystery. However, fairly clear descriptions are contained in the following excerpts.
(FROM SANFORD) Dearest Maria, you know by now what I like and what my good wife can't or won't give me: certain, shall we say "positions", that I dare not mention but dare to hope for.
(FROM BELEN CHAPUR) Oh Mark my dear, how could I withhold from you what you secretly wanted all these years. The sanctity of love makes all holy, even those positions which you dared not name. At our last tryst I completely opened myself to you and poured what you so wanted over your trembling body: "Single payer healthcare", "Higher income-tax brackets", "World government" and, and ... oh so much more. You needed it; I needed it.
(FROM SANFORD): Oh, the erotic beauty of you holding, yourself, those magnificent positions that have been held, also, by others - but hey, that would be going across the aisle.
[Of course, "Pontifax News" does not exist: it is an inside joke.]
Monday, April 1, 2013
More lights changing: CA
It is good to see the PTR (Party for The Rich, formerly GOP) being marginalized as people wake up. Check out today's column by Paul Krugman on how "kooky California" has turned the corner and embarked on a people-centered revitalization. It's also a good corrective to David Stockman's Op Ed in the Sunday NY Times. The modern PTR (ugh) is too much for Stockman, but his cynicism about what government can do to save us from rampant capitalism -- of the "free-market" as well as cronyist type -- is unimaginative and as dogmatic as ever. He laments the phasing out of the Glass-Steagull Act, yet he counts Bill Clinton as a hero, even though Clinton presided over its demise.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
They didn't notice that the lights had changed.
- He blew his mind out in a car
- He didn't notice that the lights had changed
- Whatever the inspiration for the Beatles' song, when I hum these lyrics I don't think of rich British playboys or people high on dope. I think, particularly, of Reince Priebus and the Pope (maybe not John XXIII, but most any of the others I have lived through or read or heard of).
Most recently, Priebus and the Republican establishment have been musing on why they no longer have the dreams described in Phillips' The Emerging Republican Majority. They seem to think that their policies -- cutting taxes, especially for the wealthy; cutting services, especially for the poor and middle classes; unquestioned support for all forms of Big Business and the military; harsh policies on immigration, gays and regulation; and kowtowing to the Religious Right -- are innately appealing to Americans, and that their only failure is not articulating these policies more effectively.
They didn't notice that the lights had changed.
Most recently, the administration of Boston College has decided to threaten students who have been distributing condoms in the BC dorms. This is, of course, because the Catholic Church is against any form of birth control -- as well as being against any form of abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, priest marriage, and female priesthood. It still maintains that Boston College, one of its flagship (Jesuit) institutions, can be a world-class university while its students are subject to dogmatic rules. It also believes that its problem with sexual abuse by priests is an aberration, and that its crackdown on nuns who don't hew to the ultra-conservative religious line of its (still existing) Inquisition was necessary to preserve the traditions that all Catholics believe in. And they are wondering why hardly any Catholic woman in the U.S. follows its proscription against contraception, and why a large majority of Catholics here and abroad don't agree that an all-male priesthood is a good thing. If anything, the Church has moved rightward through the actions of the conservative Popes that followed John XXIII.
They didn't notice that the lights had changed.
The people of Europe have, for a long time, rejected the conservative -- even reactionary -- policies of the American PTR (Party for The Rich, formerly GOP). It isn't that there are no conservatives in Europe, but their form of conservatism is about where American centralism is. In fact, their actual policies on Climate Change, taxation, equality of opportunity, and healthcare are, on average, where liberal Democrats in the USA are located.
Even in America, when partisan descriptions (such as "ObamaCare") are removed, Americans by a large majority favor the exact same things that Europeans favor. If one could remove gerrymandered House districts, and count votes instead, we would have a Federal government controlled totally by Democrats.
Both the Catholic Church and the Republican party didn't notice that the lights had changed.. New generations are proceeding with a green light toward a fairer, more humane, and more progressive society, while the Church and the PTR, mired in the past, are ignoring their red light and plunging along fatal paths toward collision with the vast mass of everyone else. We can only hope that they don't do too much more damage. They really could use some mind blowing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
