Daily Archives: Thursday, January 15, 2009

Telegraph (Y)UK

The Barclay brothers, following the lead of previous owner and jailbird Conrad Black, do propaganda for the Republican party.  Just check off the talking points.

Worst Column Ever?

It was inevitable, I guess, that the departure of George W. Bush from the White House would stimulate at least a few would-be revisionists or sycophants to argue publicly that the man wasn’t really the disaster that most of us perceive him to have been. But a British historian named Andrew Roberts took to the pages of the Telegraph to pen a paen to W. that is my personal nominee for Worst Column Ever, worse even than Andrew Klavan’s infamous “Dark Knight” column lionizing Bush for his brave willingness to break or ignore laws.

You need to read the whole thing to fully absorb Roberts’ breathtaking mendacity on a variety of issues related to Bush’s tenure in office. It says a lot that perhaps his least objectionable assertion is the claim that warantless wiretaps by the administration saved many thousands of American lives. The following may contain more howlers than I’ve ever read in one sentence:

With his characteristic openness and at times almost self-defeating honesty, Mr Bush has been the first to acknowledge his mistakes – for example, tardiness over Hurricane Katrina – but there are some he made not because he was a ranting Right-winger, but because he was too keen to win bipartisan support.

Yeah, that’s George W. Bush in a nutshell, all right.

Then there’s this masterpiece of economic analysis:

The credit crunch, brought on by the Democrats in Congress insisting upon home ownership for credit-unworthy people, will initially be blamed on Bush, but the perspective of time will show that the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started with the deregulation of the Clinton era. Instead Bush’s very un-ideological but vast rescue package of $700 billion (£480 billion) might well be seen as lessening the impact of the squeeze, and putting America in position to be the first country out of recession, helped along by his huge tax-cut packages since 2000.

I particularly like the phrase “credit-unworthy people” as the cause of the financial crisis. Not “people who could struggle to make their mortgage payments,” mind you, but “credit-unworthy people,” a fascist word-construction if ever I have read one. And it says a lot about Roberts’ sycophancy that he praises the Bush-Paulson “rescue package,” which most conservatives of the sort who like to sniff about “credit-unworthy people” absolutely loathed. As for the idea that Bush’s earlier tax cuts will help make America “the first country out of recession,” we are perhaps mercifully left in the dark about Roberts’ “reasoning.”

There are plenty of conservatives in the world of gab with whom progressives strongly, even violently, disagree. But they can be roughly divided into those who make the conservative case with logic and some reference to verifiable facts, and those who really don’t bother. One of the worst features of the Bush Era is the great encouragement his administration and its support network offered to the latter. For that reason, perhaps George W. Bush has found his most appropriate court minstrel in Andrew Roberts, who did not have to suffer the inconvenience of actually living in the United States over the last eight years. I do know this: as an avid reader of history, I will give the works of Andrew Roberts a very wide berth. Certainly his prediction that “history” will vindicate Bush as a great and misunderestimated man should stimulate some questions about his credibility to write “history” with anything other than crayons.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/

Schlozman hears the footsteps coming

Lying, law-breaking, Republican Justice Department official Schlozman might yet get some portion of what he deserves (see earlier post here: http://bernielatham.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/anyone-here-surprised/ )

Holder pledges to review case against Schlozman

WASHINGTON (AP) — If confirmed as attorney general, Eric Holder says he’ll review the decision not to prosecute a former Justice Department official for making false statements to Congress.

An inspector general report this week found that Bradley Schlozman, the former head of the civil rights division, misled lawmakers about whether he politicized hiring decisions.

But career prosecutors in Washington reviewed the evidence and decided not to prosecute Schlozman.

Holder said Thursday he’d review that decision it if he becomes attorney general.

Schlozman is among Justice Department officials criticized for politicizing employment decisions. The report found that he urged the hiring of people he called “real Americans.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hcI0pooZYe-XzjHts0NMf0eIUhLAD95NMSEO0

Even specialer headline of the day

Haggard deems himself ‘heterosexual but with issues’

Ted Haggard, the disgraced former pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, describes the upcoming HBO documentary about the aftermath of his 2006 sex and drug scandal as “even-handed.”

“The Trials of Ted Haggard,” by filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi, follows the exiled ex-minister in Arizona, moving from apartment to apartment, leafleting neighborhoods for money, trying unsuccessfully to get minimum-wage jobs and praying in the desert. Haggard and his family have been back in Colorado Springs since June.

“It is a sad story,” he said. “I made myself sad; I made everybody that loves me sad.”

Since Mike Jones, a male prostitute in Denver, exposed Haggard as a regular client, “my process has been very complex and very confusing.” After much therapy and prayer, he does not think of himself as bisexual, Haggard said.

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_11416611

h/t andrew sullivan

Today’s headline

Andrew Sullivan, noting the Israeli strike on the UN building in Gaza…

John Bolton’s Fantasy Comes True

Yes, and it was even colder two days ago than it looks

Mother? Is that you? I told you I was sorry thirty years ago, for God’s sake

‘High caffeine users’ – those who consumed more than the equivalent of seven cups of instant coffee a day – were three times more likely to have heard a person’s voice when there was no one there compared with ‘low caffeine users’ who consumed less than the equivalent of one cup of instant coffee a day.

‘High caffeine users’ – those who consumed more than the equivalent of seven cups of instant coffee a day – were three times more likely to have heard a person’s voice when there was no one there compared with ‘low caffeine users’ who consumed less than the equivalent of one cup of instant coffee a day.

How the Susan Crawford interview changes everything we know about torture.

Addressing the statement to Woodward by Susan Crawford,convening authority of the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay noted here… http://bernielatham.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/todays-notable-headline-that-broad-will-never-work-in-this-town-again-category/, Dahli Lithwick writes:

Whether torture occurred and who was responsible will no longer be issues behind which senior members of the administration and their lawyers and policymakers can hide. The only real issue now is: What happens next?

The answer to that question takes you to a very different place when the act is torture, as Crawford says it is. Under the 1984 Torture Convention, its 146 state parties (including the United States) are under an obligation to “ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.” These states must take any person alleged to have committed torture (or been complicit or participated in an act of torture) who is present in their territories into custody. The convention allows no exceptions, as Sen. Pinochet discovered in 1998. The state party to the Torture Convention must then submit the case to its competent authorities for prosecution or extradition for prosecution in another country.

http://www.slate.com/id/2208688/

Today’s fat arse – Karl Rove

Rove, writing his WSJ editorial this morning, plays the same game as Hanson (see earlier post).

Team Obama is about to learn that it’s easier to campaign than to govern.

In fact, they are already learning it. Last February, Congress passed a stimulus bill, adding $152 billion to the deficit. Mr. Obama called it “deficit spending” and criticized the “disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting” in Washington. Now he forecasts trillion dollar deficits on his watch. Mr. Obama, the candidate, criticized the “careless and incompetent execution” of the Iraq war. But as president-elect, he decided to retain George W. Bush’s defense secretary and put a Bush adviser in charge of the National Security Council.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123197764931283611.html

Rove is being disingenuous and trying to make you stupid here (big surprise).  He suggests that because Obama has chosen to retain Gates and another Bush appointee that therefore any criticism Obama had made previously regarding the incompetence of the Bush administration’s handling of the war is now proved invalid.  Likewise, re the budget/spending charge Rove makes.  As if the economic crisis never happened. 

But I’d direct your attention to the similarity of suggestion and intent which ties together the pieces from Kristol, Hanson, Ferrigno and Rove here – each suggests or promises that Obama and his administration are/will be ineffectual.  Let’s bold that – Obama is ineffectual

Keep this in the forefront of your mind because it is and will be the fundamental propaganda goal of these people to convince Americans that Obama is an ineffectual leader.  That will be a two-pronged effort: 1) propagandize the idea Obama is ineffectual and 2) obstruct legislation and Obama initiatives such that he is actually made less effective.  Yes, they will try to make this administration less effective, regardless of consequences to the nation.

The truth of things doesn’t matter at all, you understand.  The good of citizens doesn’t matter at all, either.  This is all about trying to effect elections and trying to regain political power. 

I’ll just remind you of what Kristol and the Republicans did at an earlier point where the Clinton team had just won their first election:

December 2, 1993 – Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to “kill” — not amend — the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the “Contract With America,” Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America’s majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol’s strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page2.html

Beginnings of change?

The United States administration plans to cut about $1 billion from the balance of its loan guarantees to Israel because of its investments in the settlements. The balance currently stands at $4.6 billion.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055585.html