Looks like at least one NIH official is about to find a new line of work.
Good Thing We Fired The Gay Arabic Specialists
Those insidious lavender linguists might have provided useful intelligence in Iraq, which is painfully short right now.
Multiple CIA sources, who spoke freely only in exchange for anonymity, said the agency’s mission of recruiting and managing human spies in Baghdad was stillborn in the weeks following the 2003 invasion and has never recovered, despite adding hundreds of personnel in the past few years. That failure has virtually crippled U.S. strategic intelligence — inside information on the personalities and plans of the often hostile U.S.-backed government, not just the multiplying insurgent groups and armed militias — in Iraq. […]
Tactical intelligence — the locations and types of enemy troops and weapons — is also suffering from a lack of access to the population and almost nonexistent language skills on the part of both CIA and military intelligence personnel, say these same sources, all of whom have decades of experience in clandestine operations.
It might seem counterintuitive that knowledge is a bad thing for America, but that is just pre-9/11 thinking. You see, for Republican administrations accurate intelligence causes more problems than it solves. Without knowledge a leader can’t discover that his addle brained theories are wrong. For example if nobody translates al Qaeda intercepts then nobody can conclude that the terrorists badly wanted Bush to win re-election (surprised? just ask Dinesh). So no more complaining about inteligence gaps crippling our operations in Iraq. An intel vacuum is good for the Party and, as long as you define America and the Party as one and the same, good for America.
Good Thing We Fired The Gay Arabic SpecialistsPost + Comments (292)
Hillary is in! And She is in it to WIN!
Apparently it is big news that Hillary Clinton has announced she is running. I was uner the impression she announced she was running in 2000.
Hillary is in! And She is in it to WIN!Post + Comments (264)
Poll Results- America hates Amerikka!
The patriotism police at Hugh Hewitt’s site and Red State are all tied up in a knot about these Fox News poll results:
Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?
Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know
Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know
Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know
Independents 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know
Dena Barnett laments:
Friends, I’ll allow you a minute to wrap your minds around this, for we are truly through the looking class. Even though we have some 150,000 troops in harm’s way and we universally profess to “support the troops,” over 1/3 of our society either wants them to fail or doesn’t know if they want them to succeed. Even more chilling are the results regarding our currently dominant political party. 49% of Democrats either want us to lose in Iraq or “don’t know” if they want us to succeed.
I would love to hear why losing in Iraq would be in the national interest. And I would love to hear the humanitarian justification for leaving Baghdad’s civilians to the tender mercies of the murderous militias and terrorists that stalk that city.
And I would also love to hear Democratic leaders respond to these poll numbers. But I won’t hold my breath.
Good. I don’t think you can handle any oxygen deprivation. But why should just Democratic leaders respond? At any rate, Red State sees a silver lining with the results:
I don’t know how much more obvious they can make their desire for America to be defeated in Iraq. Can we question their patriotism yet?
Yet? As if anything has been holding you all back there for the past few years.
My thoughts on the poll? First, I don’t trust anything released by Fox News. Anything. I wouldn’t trust their weather reports. They pay Bill O’Reilly, for chrissakes. Second, I am willing to bet that most people who responded “No,” actually were responding that they hope Bush;s plan is not implemented. I have serious doubts that half the country (including 20% of Republicans) wants us to lose the war or doesn’t know if they want us to win.
Until a more rputable firm with a clearer question releases the poll, I will treat this as silliness.
Bullshit. Nonsense. Balderdash. Silliness.
Erick at Red State reads the WaPo article we mentioned earlier and slips into victim mode:
Obnoxious. Distorted. False. Intentional. The Washington Post At Work
By Erick
Were it not so obnoxiously partisan, Jonathan Weisman’s article on Republican Senators blocking ethics legislation would be laughable.
Weisman goes out of his way to make the case that Democrats are trying to pass “bipartisan” ethics legislation, but are being stopped by Republicans who want a vote on “an unrelated measure” to give President Bush line-item-veto powers over earmarks.
The article is total crap because it fails to accurately point out that Republicans did not halt the legislation, but demanded further debate time to offer more amendments to further tighten the law. The article is total crap because it fails to discuss Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Robert Byrd’s efforts to block tougher ethics restricts. The article is total crap because it fails to mention how these three rushed to shut down debate before the GOP could offer even more amendments to tighten the law on ethics and earmarks.
The GOP is fighting to tighten laws on earmarks, lobbyists, and ethics. The Democrats are using procedural measures to stop them because when the GOP efforts get to the floor, they are winning. Nonetheless, the Washington Post can’t help but blame the GOP.
Damned liberal media!
What is total crap is this ridiculous notion that the Senate GOP is actually concerned with reforming earmarks and the rest of the bit. In fairness, some of them are- Brownback comes to mind as someone who has always fought pork, which is to his credit despite his being all sorts of batshit crazy on social issues. But what they are actually concerned with is an issue. If this really was important to the GOP, they would have done something the past 6 years. They didn’t. They wrote Bush and themselves a blank check, spent like drunken sailors (no offense, drunken sailors), and now that the election is over and corruption was a big issue, they are besides themselves trying to look like reformers so the Democrats can’t deliver their promises and reap the rewards. And because they want the issue, there will be no reform.
Let’s frame this in a way Republicans will understand, and examine something we really do care about. Tax Cuts.
Let’s say that for 6 years the Republicans had the House and Senate and the Presidency and did not pass ONE SINGLE tax bill, even though they are allegedly the anti-tax party. They then lose the election to the Democrats, who begin to pass a bunch of tax cut bills. Republicans stand up, and start shouting- “THOSE TAX CUTS AREN’T ENOUGH. WE NEED MORE, AND WE NEED MORE DEBATE!” They then insert a bunch of silly bills like, say, the abolishment of the IRS and a complete repeal on every tax.
The Democrats pitch a fit, the Republicans filibuster, and guess what? No one gets any tax cuts. The Republicans then have the unmitigated gall to then claim they are the real tax cutters, and blame the Democrats for not cutting taxes.
Now switch the words “tax cut” with “ethics and earmark reform,” and you will see how totally full of shit the Republicans are on this issue.
And, of course, the example is absurd. Why? Because REPUBLICANS CARE ABOUT TAX CUTS. It is pretty much the first damned thing we did when Bush was elected. In fact, I can’t think of anything other than social security reform that we/they wanted to do, but didn’t (for fun, look up S-686). They don’t care about earmark reform, ethics reform, lobbying reform. If they did, they would have done something about it. They didn’t. And they are blocking what the Democrats are trying to do all the while claiming they are the real reformers.
Yes. They are that full of shit. And the worst thing is, they believe it.
*** Update ***
And the stalemate has been broken and the reform has been passed by a vote of 96-2. Which, of course, means that all Republicans but two voted for what just a few hours ago was described as a hideous bill. Go figure.
Bullshit. Nonsense. Balderdash. Silliness.Post + Comments (32)
Who Killed Ethics Reform?
Red State says the Democrats:
Last night in the Senate, and for the second time in a week, Republicans scored a victory for spending restraint when they forced the majority Democrats to object to a vote on an earmark reform amendment. The amendment to S.1, The Ethics and Lobby Reform Bill, was offered by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and would incorporate the “A Second Look at Wasteful Spending Act of 2007” into the legislation.
***The fact is that Democrats object to the Gregg amendment and the DeMint amendment because they aren’t really against earmarks. They only wanted to campaign on the issue, not actually do anything substantive about it. Now that they are in the majority, they want all the perks of office; and that includes easier access to taxpayer dollars for their constituencies and their re-election chances. But feisty Senate Republicans are not letting them have their pork and eat it too. So, Sen. Reid, Sen. Durbin and the rest of the Senate Democrats are obstructing their own bill and explaining. And, as we know in politics, when you’re explaining, you’re losing.
The Washington Post says the Republicans:
Senate Republicans scuttled broad legislation last night to curtail lobbyists’ influence and tighten congressional ethics rules, refusing to let the bill pass without a vote on an unrelated measure that would give President Bush virtual line-item-veto power.
The bill could be brought back up later this year. Indeed, Democrats will try one last time today to break the impasse. But its unexpected collapse last night infuriated Democrats and the government watchdog groups that had been pushing it since the lobbying scandals that rocked the last Congress. Proponents charged that Republicans had used the spending-control measure as a ruse to thwart ethics rules they dared not defeat in a straight vote.
Considering the line-item veto was found to be unconstitutional in 1998, and the GOP had the last six years to pass a workaround and chose not to, I am hard pressed to figure out how the Democrats are in the wrong here.
Oh, and for double special bonus chutzpah, the GOP filibustered:
The bill was to be the Democratic-controlled Senate’s first piece of legislation, a statement of bipartisanship and a break from the scandals that helped return the party to power. Instead, a measure that began with Reid and McConnell as co-sponsors was chased from the floor in a partisan showdown when Republicans prevented the Democratic leadership from bringing it to a vote. The 51 to 46 vote was nowhere close to the two-thirds majority needed to break the Republican filibuster.
There was no mention of the much loved GOP nuclear option. I wish I could honestly support the line item amendment, but I know damned well that as soon as it looks like it would pass, the Republicans would no longer want it. Right now it is a convenient tool to be used against the Democrats, but you don’t need to be too cynical to realize they don;t really care about ethics reform. If they did, they would recognize their amendment failed, and move on with the proposed reform (which although not perfect, is better than no reform at all). They want an issue, they want their earmarks, but they do not want ethics reform.
*** Update ***
I am aware this is not a line-item veto. Which is why I did not call it that. I stated that the LIV was found unconstitutional in the late 90’s, and they had plenty of time to find a workaround (such as this) in thepast six years. But they didn’t. Why not?
Because they don’t care.
I would love to give Presidents the authority to strike wasteful spending from bills, but I do not know if it is legal, I do not know if it will be passed (and it won’t now), and I additionally don’t know anymore, after this administration, if I trust Presidents with this authority. For all I know, Bush would use it and decide we simply do not need the Department of Education.
Given all that, I still care about reform. So rather than be a petulant chilkd (like the Senate Republicans), I would accept I am not in the majority anymore, and vote for the ethics reform they are advancing. While not perfect, it is better than what is out there now. Instead, the GOP has chosen to block it and has delivered us:
NOTHING.
They, however, have an issue and rightwing blogs can now babble incessantly (as Red State already as) about how the Republicans are the real reformers. How do they get the title of real reformers? By blocking the reform package.
Up is down. Black is white. You don’t need to worry unless you are doing something wrong.
Really?
Abu Gonzales, meet Russ Feingold.
Feingold‘s first question – “do you know of any one in the country who opposed eavesdropping on terrorists?”
Gonzales: “Sure – if you look at blogs today, there is a lot of concern about all types of eavesdropping, who don’t want us eavesdropping at all.
Feingold: Do you know anyone in government who ever took that position?
Gonzales: No, but that is not what I said.
Feingold: It is a disgrace and disservice to your office and the President to have accused people on this Committee of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists.
Gonzales: I didn’t have you in mind or anyone on the Committee when I referred to people who oppose eavesdropping on terrorists. Perish the thought.
Feingold: Oh, well it’s nice that you didn’t have us “in your mind” when making those accusations, but given that you and the President were running around the country accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists in the middle of an election, the fact that you didn’t have Congressional Democrats in “mind” isn’t significant. Your intent was to make people think that anyone who opposed the “TSP” did not want to eavesdrop on terrorists, even though that was false. No Democrats oppose eavesdropping on terrorists.
Gonzales: I wasn’t referring to Democrats.
So it was just a grave misunderstanding Republicans hinged their 2006 campaign on cynical attacks on their political opponents. Not at all, they really meant bloggers. With messaging skill like that it’s no wonder they lost.
Now I’m curious. Who are we talking about here? Off the top of my head I can’t think of any bloggers who thought that we shouldn’t eavesdrop on terrorists. Gonzales now admits that opposing the warrantless eavesdropping program on constitutional grounds does not automatically equate with supporting terrorists, and yet that is exactly the basis on which the bloggers whom I know about opposed the program. While we wait for Gonzales to substantiate his slander v2.0 (could be a while, eh?), let’s see whether the GOP’s internet supporters can back him up.
So, who was abu Gonzales talking about? Remember that opposing the program simply because warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens violates FISA no longer counts. You need to find somebody who argued that we shouldn’t eavesdrop on terrorists, period. And gosh, this has to be one influential blogger to spark such a hysterical reaction from the width and breadth of the Republican party.
Or, we could be honest with ourselves. The endless, slanderous supporting-the-terrorists rhetoric was meant to have a shelf life of about two months. The point was to fan hate and fear among the base long enough to give the Party its usual jingoistic bump and then hope everybody forgets about it. I don’t think I’m breaking any new ground here, that’s always the plan.
Once you cross that kind of Rubicon a grown man has basically two choices. he could own up to it and say to Feingold’s face, yeah, I think you don’t want to surveil terrorists. bin Laden-lover. Or he can own up and apologize for pretending that Democrats were one small step removed from traitors to the Republic. Taking the weasel way out insults his intelligence and ours.