Another day

Another dollar's worth of wtfs....

An Army of Giant Rats Unearth Landmines in Africa

People Locked in Tiny Cages, Crying in Pain: What I Saw and Heard When the LAPD Threw Me in Jail for Exercising My Right to Protest the Oligarchy Don't believe the PR. There was nothing peaceful or professional about the LAPD's attack on Occupy LA -- or the way detainees were later treated.

Pelosi Puts The Kibosh On GOP Payroll Tax Cut Strategy

Killing the Euro

The 45 Most Powerful Images Of 2011

Oooops....

David Kurtz of TPM:

House Democrats have been loud and proud on how robust a public option they were going to pass, but in the last few days, starting with reports in The Hill and Politico last week, there have been rumblings that Nancy Pelosi doesn't have the votes she thought she had, or at least projected herself as having.

Today our old colleague Greg Sargent reports that the latest whip count shows more than 50 potential Democratic defectors on the robust public option -- far more than the 38 Dems she can afford to lose and still pass the bill with zero GOP support. That may explain the noises Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was making this morning about a less robust public option being able to garner a lot more votes, suggesting one possible route to a securing a majority.

And here is Harry Reid asking for backup....

Update: And the White House has some health care reform videos to choose from.

Nancy Pelosi was right!

Three part series by Ernest A. Canning for Brad Blog: History of CIA Torture: Unraveling the Web of Deceit, Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Pelosi wants all the files to be opened to prove she is right. The Republicans want the files opened to prove she is lying and is therefore somehow culpable. Cheney wants only a few specific files to prove that his wonderful program of torture worked...

So let's open ALLLLLllll the files!! /rubs hands in anticipation

To take someone down

You have to get lower than he is... the bottom of the barrel will do:

"We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010," said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. "Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint."

They laid down for Bush without complaint

But they suddenly find their spine to stand against Obama? No, not the Democrats... the Republicans?

House Republicans are determined to oppose the release of the second half of the financial-industry bailout funds, a GOP House leadership aide tells the Huffington Post.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) will work to persuade members to vote to oppose releasing the funds -- an enviable task, considering the unpopularity of the bailout.

The Republican conference position makes approval of the release of the funds difficult for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other House Democrats, many of whom opposed the original dispersal.

And just why on earth are they doing this? (my bold)

On Monday, Boehner announced that he would be personally opposing the release of the rest of the funds, though he stopped short of calling on his colleagues to do the same. "I remain disappointed about the way TARP has been managed and how its resources have been spent over the last several months. From the outset, the program has been implemented with too little transparency and in a manner inconsistent with the way it was presented to Congress last fall. Until officials can present a clear plan to Congress -- and, most importantly, to taxpayers -- demonstrating how the expenditure of additional TARP funds will benefit our economy and making clear an exit strategy for getting the government back out of the private sector, it would be irresponsible for Congress to release the remainder of these resources. I will oppose the release of these taxpayer funds when the matter is considered on the House floor," Boehner said.

The unpopular bailout has only become less popular over the last few months, as banks and the Treasury Department have refused to reveal details as to how the taxpayer money -- or, more accurately, future taxpayers' money -- has been spent.

Republican opposition, however, is a political freebie: the president will still get the money. He can veto congressional disapproval of the funds; House Democrats then need only 144 votes to sustain such a veto and authorize the money's release without any Republican consent. If they do, however, they may earn the sole political ownership of the bailout they fought so hard to avoid.

Oh, nice try guys! But you supported Bush and his neocon buddies for eight solid years, you own this economic disaster.

Because the government is of the people, by the people, for the people

Dmark of Flyover Country:

As long as Nancy Pelosi hold the office of Speaker of the House, every time she appears in public someone needs to stand before her and say:

Madame Speaker, The President of the United States and the Vice-President of the United States have, by their own admission, broken the laws of the United States to a level which may be construed as Treason. They have admitted to actions which the world has deemed War Crimes. Why have you not followed the oath of office to which you swore, and brought these crimes before the body of which you are leader? Why have you shirked your duty and ignored your oath and not sought the impeachment of these officials as is required by the Constitution? Why have you stated that you will not even consider impeachment even though the oath you swore requires you to? How can you stand before the people of the United States and the world and refuse to do that to which you swore?

You can't ignore the people, Nancy. We want answers. We want justice. We want impeachment.

What the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats

Are all about. War, yes. Soldiers, no.:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday postponed consideration of a bill that would continue funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a bloc of conservative Democrats balked at the high cost of including several of Pelosi's favored domestic spending programs.

Pelosi (D-Calif.), who also faces Republican stalling tactics in protest of unusual parliamentary procedures, predicted that the complaints of "Blue Dog" Democrats would be addressed and that the bill eventually would receive unanimous support from Democrats.

"I am very confident that, next week, we will come to the floor with a bill that has the full consensus of the Democrats and hopefully can attract a large number of Republicans, as well," she told reporters.

The Blue Dogs have objected to the creation of a program that would guarantee veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan a year of in-state college tuition for each year served in the war zones. The Blue Dogs said the House had not found any additional money, through spending cuts or tax increases, to pay for the program, a violation of pay-as-you-go rules imposed by House Democrats in early 2007.

[snip]

President Bush has announced his opposition to any bill that contains veterans' benefits and unemployment insurance in addition to the war funds.

Yet without question, there is more than enough money to pay for Bush's Eternal War on a Noun and all the defense contractors, mercenary groups, and militias that are involved. Nice to see what their priorities are.

What the hell is Bush blackmailing Reid and Pelosi with

That they fold like wet toilet paper each and every fucking time? WTF!

Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake:

Harry Reid once again used Senate procedure to tank retroactive immunity and other changes Democrats wanted to the FISA bill. George Bush gets everything he ever hoped for.

She then quotes Glenn Greenwald of Salon:

It seems rather clear what happened here. There are certain amendments that are not going to get even 50 votes -- including the Dodd/Feingold amendment to strip telecom immunity out of the bill -- and, for that reason, Republicans were more than willing to agree to a 50-vote threshold, since they know those amendments won't pass even in a simple up-or-down vote.

But then, there are other amendments which might be able to get 50 votes, but cannot get 60 votes -- such as Feinstein's amendment to transfer the telecom cases to the FISA court and her other amendment providing that FISA is the "exclusive means" for eavesdropping -- and, thus, those are the amendments for which the GOP insisted upon a 60-vote requirement.

The whole agreement seems designed to ensure that the GOP gets everything they want -- that they are able to defeat all of the pending amendments which Dick Cheney dislikes, and to do so without having to engage in a real filibuster. In what conceivable way is this an instance of "Dems not caving" or "holding tough?"

What kind of blackmail did the NSA uncover when they were listening to Congressional phone calls pre-9/11?:

Still, one thing that appears to be indisputable is that the NSA surveillance began well before 9/11 and months before President Bush claims Congress gave him the power to use military force against terrorist threats, which Bush says is why he believed he had the legal right to bypass the judicial process.

According to the online magazine Slate, an unnamed official in the telecom industry said NSA's "efforts to obtain call details go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and the president's now celebrated secret executive order. The source reports that the NSA approached U.S. carriers and asked for their cooperation in a 'data-mining' operation, which might eventually cull 'millions' of individual calls and e-mails."

C'mon Reid and Pelosi. NOTHING could be that bad that you sell our country out to the worst... THE WORST.. administration in our country's history. Tell us what you are being blackmailed for and we will forgive you if you just stand up to this 24% supported Moron-in-Chief.

Do the right thing and stand up to this administration.

Want to address this, Madam Speaker?

Lambert of CorrenteWire:

Well, I guess now I know why impeachment was “off the table.” Anybody for Barney Frank as the new speaker? Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen in WaPo:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique[ly illegal and unconstitutional?] CIA program designed to wring [torture] vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the Bipartisan group, which included future-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites [gulags] and the harsh techniques [torture] interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill [not to mention the US military**]. But on that day, no objections were raised.

Update 12/10: What Digby said.

As simple as that

In a move that surprised current and former members, Santa Rosa's normally staid and nonpartisan City Council asked Congress to launch impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

On a 5-1 vote cast at midnight Tuesday, the council endorsed a resolution presented by local impeachment advocates.

The vote by a seven-member council that had steadfastly resisted taking stands on national issues put Santa Rosa in the company of 88 other cities and counties, including Berkeley, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Arcata and Sebastopol.

Are you listening, Nancy?

Remembering fondly Hastert's time in Congress

And wondering why he'd turn his back on all the wonderful perks the office entitled him to have...

Like hanging out with the prez and others in the halls of power:







But then he was rudely reminded that he was supposed to be working...



And now indicates he's resigning. Eli of Multi Medium knows why:

Why Denny Hastert would suddenly decide to retire, rather than just not running for re-election. I had a feeling it might be something bad…

[Brent Wilkes’ nephew and flunky Joel Combs] testified today– just as Hastert let it be known he would be resigning from Congress– that Wilkes had paid “to fly Cunningham and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert from a golf outing in Palm Springs to San Diego for a reception and then back to Washington on private jets.”

They've been waiting a long time for this

And time is of the essence. looseheadprop at Firedoglake:

I suppose we should not blame the GOP too much: look at the example the President has been setting, treating the most important work in the world like a no show job. Which may explain why during the first quarter of 2005 the Republican dominated 109th House was in session a grand total of 164 hours over 27 days. By contrast Nancy Pelosi has kept the House members nose's to the grindstone for 407 hours over 49 days.

These folks were not just punching clock. The Pelosi-led Democratically controlled House of Representatives has already held 213 roll call votes and passed a total of 176 measures as compared to the 90 roll call votes held in the House during the first quarter of the 109th Cong. which managed to pass only 61 measures during that period. Can you say SLACKERS?

Over on the Senate side of the Capitol there are similar improvements. For example, Give 'em Hell Harry has presided over a Senate which has held a total of 230 oversight hearings in the first three months of 2007 (including appropriations and hearings devoted to the Iraq war), but the 109th Cong Senate held only 111 oversight hearings during the same period in 2005.

Harry Reid makes Georgie pout

Which is very satisfying:

A source familiar with the meeting -- at which no compromise of any kind was reached, though Speaker Nancy Pelosi said publicly today that it had been "productive" -- shares a few interesting tidbits. First, the source says, Bush bristled and was taken aback when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid compared the current situation to Vietnam; he also appeared irked by those who said the war couldn't be won.

Second, according to the source, Reid told Bush that he understood that the White House would come after Congressional Dems after the veto of the bill with everything they had; Reid vowed to respond every bit as aggressively.

"Reid talked about a recent conversation he had with a retired general where they talked about the similarities between the current situation and Vietnam," the source relates. "He talked about how the President and Secretary of Defense [during Vietnam] knew that the war was lost but continued to press on at the cost of thousands of additional lives lost."

"The analogy to Vietnam appeared to touch a nerve with the President. He appeared a little sensitive to it," the source continued. "And he clearly didn't like to hear people in the room say that the war couldn't be won militarily."

More: "Reid made it clear to the President that he understood that the President and Vice President after the veto would come after him and Speaker Pelosi with everything they have. Reid said that he and Pelosi would respond just as aggressively. He said he was convinced that they were on the right side of the issue."

Update: Think Progress has more:

New York Times: “Members of the group, which included four senators and six representatives, all spoke, including Mr. Reid, who compared the Iraq war to the Vietnam War and suggested to Mr. Bush that he should not continue with the war simply to protect his legacy. The president was visibly angered by the comment, according to aides, but he did not respond directly.”

This is far worse than Pelosi's evil doer scarf

Bush:

The most common hat for men in the synagogue is a small round cap called a yarmulke (Yiddish) or a kippah (Hebrew), but an ordinary homburg or street hat will be accepted.

So. Where is the outrage?

Those attacks on Pelosi's visit to Syria?

Looks like it's Elliot Abrams. Think Progress:

Jim Lobe writes, “There is little doubt among Middle East analysts here that [Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott] Abrams is playing a lead role in White House efforts to discredit Pelosi for meeting with Assad,” just as he did in a similar incident in 1987.

UPDATE: “At the one and only meeting between Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the United States, and a White House official, one of President Bush’s closest advisers, Elliot Abrams, said the administration saw no good reason to ‘reward’ Syria by opening discussions.”

This man is a real neocon:

The same confusion was apparent at the White House, where National Security Council (NSC) official Elliott Abrams - the architect of US policy in the Middle East - was growing increasingly irritated with Rice's attempt to restart Israeli-Palestinian talks. Abrams, supported by officials in the Office of the Vice President, had consistently argued that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a morass better left in the hands of the Israelis. That viewpoint was clear from the first days of the administration of President George W Bush, when Vice President Dick Cheney knocked down any attempt to re-engage with Israelis and Palestinians.

A Republican Party stalwart describes Cheney's views in blunt terms: "People would come to Bush and say we have to get focus on the peace process, and Cheney would sit there and say, 'Mr President, don't do it. These people have been fighting for 50 years. To hell with them. And look at what happened to [former president Bill] Clinton when he tried. It just got worse.' And Bush would nod his head and that would be the end of the discussion."

The NSC's concerns over Rice had deepened with reports that she had gone directly to Bush on a number of foreign-policy issues, circumventing both Abrams and Cheney. While it is traditional for a US secretary of state to confer directly with a president, Abrams, Rice and State Department official David Welch (the assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs) had formed a seemingly unbreakable triumvirate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Pelosi is evil and bad because she visits Syria part 2

Chester of Vanity Press discusses the Logan act and provides a list of all the other Speakers of the House and errant Congressmen who have stepped over the line:

The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.

But, let's pretend for a moment that Pelosi's trip really did violate this act that has never been enforced and which does not apply to members of Congress in pursuit of their responsibilities. All right: let's look who else would have to be arrested for violation of the act:

• Newt Gingrich, for interfering with the Clinton administration's policy in China in 1997, and in Israel in 1998.
• Dennis Hastert, for interfering with the Clinton administration's policy in Columbia in 1998.
• Arlen Specter, for interfering with the Bush administration's policy in Syria in 2006, and offering to meet with the president of Iran.
• "Representatives Frank Wolf of Virginia, Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania and Robert Aderholt of Alabama," for interfering with the Bush administration's policy in Syria three days before Pelosi.
  
• Jesse Helms, for undermining the Clinton administration's policy before the UN Security Council in 2000 (h/t John).
  
• Darrell Issa, for undermining the Bush administration's policy in Syria one day after Pelosi.
• David Hobson, for undermining the Bush administration's policy in Syria at the same time as Pelosi.
• Condoleeza Rice, whose State Department facilitated the visit, and thereby collaborated in the commission of a felony.
  
• George W. Bush, who specifically permitted the visit, and thereby aided and abetted the commission of a felony.

Would that be all right? Can we get these ten prominent Republicans in prison right away?

Update: Olvlzl of Echidne of the Snakes notes that Bush blocked Carter from visiting Syria; Issa (R) criticized Bush after visiting Syria right after Pelosi had been there and Pelosi had not said anything negative about Bush, and Pelosi has shown world class leadership. Thank god.

Why Pelosi is so dangerous even without her headscarf

To the neocon mindset:

..., the war against Pelosi is a rear-guard assault by the White House against moderates and liberals in both political parties who understand that the failed Bush policies have jeopardized American interests and hurt the Mideast peace process. What Wolf and Pelosi have in common is their endorsement of the Iraq Study Group's proposals, which emphasize regional diplomacy, including direct talks with both Syria and Iran. Indeed, it was Wolf who first approached James Baker about undertaking the Iraq report, and who sponsored the legislation that paid for the group's work.

The neoconservatives, both within and outside the White House, resent Pelosi for publicly dissenting from their ideology of war and their rejection of diplomacy. Their own vision has collapsed in ruins; they have gravely harmed the American military and discredited the ideals of democracy, and they have run out of ideas. That sucking sound is the vacuum of their minds.

Now in their bankruptcy, they can only smear those who, like Speaker Pelosi, are attempting to promote a bipartisan alternative. Let us hope she possesses the courage to continue that crucial mission.

But Pelosi's visit to Damascus had this reaction there:

"There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy- even if it's being led by the opposition," said Ziad Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, a leftist Lebanese daily. Syrian officials are increasingly betting on improved relations with American Democrats, whom they expect to lead the United States in coming years, Mr. Haider said. "Pelosi's approach represents a more practical policy; the administration's policy over the last few years has been based on demands and ideology," he said.

In Damascus's old section where Ms. Pelosi's name had become a household word, many spoke optimistically of an impending change in relations.

"Ms. Pelosi is going to be very happy in Syria," said Izzat Abdoulkarim, who runs an optical shop in downtown Damascus. "George Bush says we are bad, but she will see this is not true."

He added, emphatically: "She views the world through a different perspective than Bush. She's more open-minded."

So the rightwingers are having a fit over a scarf?

Where a woman of power adopts a subservient symbol to a religion she is not a member of as a form of courtesy?

OOooooohhhhhh. THIS is what the right wingers are frothing about:

(pic from Yahoo News)

Pelosi shoulda come in there with arms akimbo and shouted: 'What the fuck are you assholes doing?! You gotta do what we say or we'll shockandawe you guys into the Stone Ages!' That's how Republicans do diplomacy nowadays!

Pelosi is evil and bad because she visits Syria

But the Republicans who just visited Syria are ok?

Let's see if all the big news outlets who lavished so much coverage on the White House's attack on Nancy Pelosi for her trip to Syria have any time for this.

It's well known by now that even as the White House was slamming Pelosi for her Syria trip GOP House members were making their own trip to Syria. This has drawn lots of attention already.

But check this out: It now looks like the White House might have actually been helping these House Republicans arrange their trip to Syria at the same time they were criticizing Pelosi for going there! Who's the source of this allegation? The chief of staff to one of the GOP Congressmen who went to Syria, that's who!

Cheney in his own words

Hoisted by his own petard (thank you, Thers):
Dan Froomkin:

Vice President Cheney is going out of his way to make it clear that he doesn't think he has anything to apologize for.

And then Froomkin quotes Cheney's non-apologies about Iraq, quagmires, amassing of power, Pelosi, and Scooter Libby.