Want to do that one over, all you nay-sayers?

As reported on HuffingtonPost by Rachel Wiener:

When a Department of Homeland Security report on right-wing extremism was released earlier this year, the conservative media responded with outrage and mockery. In light of Wednesday's attack at the Washington D.C. Holocaust Museum, Fox News' anchor Shep Smith pointed out that "they warned us for a reason." Media Matters has looked back at how those warnings were ignored.

"There are no Timothy McVeighs out there right now," declared James Dobson on Fox News in April. "They're making a big deal out of something that hasn't happened and may not happen."

Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros dismissed the report's findings as a "made up threat."

Joe Scarborough reacted with both anger and indignation, expressing shock that the report was "targeting veterans returning from war" while also laughing hysterically when it was brought up: "This is a funny story this is a laughably -- they're nuts, Janet Napolitano has gone nuts -- this is funny."

At least one Fox newsman has said "we ought to take a second look at the report.''

Yes, indeed. And while you're at it, take a look in the mirror, all those of you who want Obama to fail and don't care what happens to this country as long as you get to bleat out your unthinking, ranting, knee-jerk criticisms.

Ralph

Two frivilous questions

1. What's with George H. W. and Barbara Bush? Both octogenarians seem to be flirting with sexy young people. A couple of days ago, there was a pic of Poppy with a sexy young actress in a bikini sitting on his lap and a story about, for his 86 birthday, he's going sky-diving in tandem with a sexy young woman TV newscaster.

I know it used to be his tradition to go skydiving on his birthday. But have you taken leave of your senses, Poppy? Not six months ago, watching you hobble in to Obama's inauguration was a painful sight. You could hardly walk. Diving out of the plane should be no problem, but have you thought about landing on those old bones?

Not to be outdone, today there's a pic up of Barbara at her 84th birthday celebration with a handsome young man standing next to her chair in nothing but a speedo. He has one of those perfect bodies out of Men's Health Magazine, all sexy and gym-buffed. It said he was an actor from a production of A Chorus Line. Nice that they had invited him to the party, but almost naked?

What's going on, Poppy and Bar? Or is this 76 year old just jealous?

2. This one's been nagging me for some time. Why is it that, in 9 out of 10 pics of Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, they always have their mouths open? I don't mean pics where they were obviously snapped in the middle of talking. It's a scoffing, mouth-open expression that seems to be laughing at the simple souls that they think they're putting one over on -- meaning all the rest of us. For both, it seems to be their default facial expression.

It's not just a mean selection of pics by liberal photo editors. I've watched the same thing in live action of them on TV.

Maybe they're just happy souls, and I'm too biased to see any goodness in them; but I think I'm a pretty good reader of expressions. And they both convey that same arrogant, derisive, glib quality that I despise in anyone.

Ralph

Sadly, we told you so

There is no joy in being proved right, when it means that the predicted violence was, in fact, the high risk we were told it was. But that's the situation we have.

In April, Janet Napolitano was strongly criticized by conservatives (including Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele) for what they deemed unfair targeting of those who have a different philosophy from the Obama administration.

This was their reaction to a Homeland Security report that warned against a heightened risk of right-wing extremist violence in the wake of the economic hard times and disillusioned soldiers returning from Iraq.

Now, within one week, we have had two horrific, headline murders by right-wing extremists: Dr. George Tiller last week by a notorious anti-abortion extremist, and today's shooting at the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum by an anti-Semitic extremist, whose web site is filled with pejorative comments about "Jewish control of the Justice system."

Despite the outrage by republican clowns straining for a political smear, the danger was real, is real; and Homeland Security was right to call attention to it. Incidentally, they had previously put out a report discussing left-wing extremism.

There is no joy in being proved right in tragedies like these. But at least the republican clowns should hang their heads in shame.

I'm confident that the Secret Service knows that the risk to our president is heightened at a time like this, with crazy people emboldened to carry out their own tortured, bigoted violence.

But I need to say it: please, please, be extra watchful and cautious.

Ralph

Insanity for profits

Agence France-Presse reports that major life and health insurance companies are heavily invested in companies whose affiliates produces cigarettes, cigars and chewing tobacco.

That is the insanity of a health care system that puts profit over health.

In this country, we are at a crossroad, where we need to decide whether health care should be a for-profit business or a service for the public good. I don't mean that no one should make a living working in health care; but as an investment? Where the profit is the main driving objective?

My personal answer is that it should be a service for public good and that a healthy populace should be the primary goal that determines policy decisions.

Instead we have the insanity of those, who should be dedicated to health, investing -- and thus promoting -- the proven leading cause of lung cancer and a major risk factor for heart attack, stroke, pulmonary disease and cancer. According to the World Health Organization, tobacco is a contributing factor in 5.4 million deaths a year.

It's even worse than that. Insurance companies have figured out how to double their profit: (1) from tobacco company earnings and (2) by excluding smokers, or charging them higher premiums, for their medical insurance.

There oughta be a law. And it ought to be another factor in moving us toward a government sponsored, non-profit option for health insurance.

Ralph

Obama renigs on DA/DT

Presidential candidate Barak Obama made a commitment to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

President Barak Obama still says he will end it, but not just yet. He says he wants to do it right, meaning prepare the troops for it, I suppose.

Well, guess what? The military is way ahead and already has a plan for implementing it. Polls among the young troops (supposedly the ones whose morale and cohesiveness would be affected) say it's not a big deal. Several top generals are in favor of it. Even Sam Nunn, who was a big force in the original DA/DT plan, says its time to reconsider it.

And there's a simple measure Obama could use while it all gets worked out: simply give a directive not to discharge any more of our service men and women under DA/DT while the details are worked out. That shouldn't involve a lot of time or angst on anyone's part: just don't kick out those already serving honorably and without any problems. We need them; many who have been discharged were serving a vital function, like Arab linguistic specialists.

So why, please, did Obama have a DoJ lawyer arguing in a court challenge that the policy is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

Fresh, spunky, lesbian TV newsperson Rachel Madow took Obama to task:

Which is, of course, ridiculous. All "don't ask don't tell" is, is a policy by which everyone pretends that the gay and lesbian soldiers that are already serving in the military aren't really there, and that everything is okay provided that those gay and lesbian soldiers agree to participate in the Grand Shenanigan of Pollyanna Pretense. So, no, Mr, President. No, Mr. President's lawyer. No. No. And, no. It simply cannot be said that "don't ask don't tell" is rationally related to a single blessed thing.

With the non-support from the Obama administration, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. I take that to mean that they are not willing to consider the constitutionality of the law, which is in keeping with other decisions not to over-rule military judgment. No better case is going to along, than many that have already failed, so it's not a matter of waiting for the right court case. It's going to be up to Congress to rescind the law -- which is probably as it should be.

But, while we wait for that, why not simply stop kicking them out, Sir? Or at least give us a better reason why not.

Ralph

Cheney, redux

For anyone not so Cheney-saturated that you don't want to read another word, I strongly recommend Mickey Nardo's blog from yesterday, "where does one start?": http://1boringoldman.clom.

It concerns a review of the book, "Angler: The Cheney Vice-Presidency," and other published reports. "Angler" was published last fall but sort of got overlooked in all the financial crisis and the presidential campaign.

It is a devastating picture of the way Cheney operated behind the scenes to subvert the rule of law, to manipulate the workings of our government, and to subtly and slyly influence a callow, ex-frat-boy, faux-cowboy put in the White House by a 5/4 divided Supreme Court.

Much of the book has to do with the way Cheney sold the Iraq war and warrantless wiretapping to a cowed Congress. Gellman, the author, cites how Cheney personally briefed key Congressional leaders and misled and outright lied to them -- including the House majority leader in his own party, Dick Armey who was opposed to invading Iraq until Cheney told him a bunch of lies about Saddaam's WMD. Armey says now he believes Cheney misled him, and if he had known the truth then he would not have voted for the war authorization.

It became a caricature early on to portray Cheney as the puppeteer and Bush as the puppet, but it looks like it was truer than we even suspected.

Ralph

No there, there

One of my favorite bloggers, the brilliant and thorough journalist, "Digby," writing at "Hullabaloo," does a take on the "Third Way" group:

If there's one mealy mouthed "centrist" bucket of lukewarm spit operation in Washington that makes me crazy (and there are many to choose from) I would have to say that Third Way is the one. They fetishize bipartisanship, compromise and difference splitting to the point where there is no there there and the conservatives win simply because they have a pulse.

Yesterday McJoan at DKos published a Third Way memo which predictably comes out against the public plan option in health care reform ---which indicates to me that it is probably considered by most buckets of lukewarm spit to be the bargaining chip in the debate . (And what do you know? It turns out that Third Way's memo was written by health industry flacks.)

I keep reminding myself that, while I want the most progressive possible solution to my choice of issues, President Obama has to consider everything, to set priorities for fights he will engage, to balance the practical against the ideal, and to consider what is possible to get passed by Congress.

Still, I am dismayed that it's beginning to seem that true health care reform is doomed to the power of the insurance lobby and to those, like Third Way, who have decided that the public plan option is the bargaining chip to be given away in return for some minor reform measures.

True, Obama has been sitting back and letting Congress work out the details, and he has not himself yet given up on the public plan -- and he has signalled that he is now going to get more actively involved in the negotiations.

But -- allowing Bauchus to hold hearings without even putting "single payer" on the agenda for discussion, letting Blue Dog Dems backslide and the tide to turn against "public plan," I wonder if he has waited too late.

Or -- dare we even mention that his campaign received the largest contributions from the industry to any senator during 2008: $38 million from insurance companies, $1 million from health services, and $2 million from BigPharma. It's true, they were getting on board with the future president, and the next biggest contributions went to John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

I don't want to believe that Obama would let his health care reform plans be influenced by money. But I worry that we're going to wind up with one of those "compromises" that is inadequate to effect real change, but still costs a lot and doesn't work -- and it will set back the whole push for it by years.

Polls show that the public is not so averse to a single-payer plan as are politicians. Where are the courageous progressive senators that have the clout to push it through?

Ralph

Who's telling the truth?

It is a devastating indictment of what our government became under george w. bush, but it is undeniable: when a Gitmo detainee says one thing and our government says another, I tend to believe the detainee.

Jack Tapper on ABC online reports an interview with Lakhdar Boumediene, a 43 yrear old Algerian who was caught up in a post-9/11 sweep, accused of plotting to blow up US and British embassies in Sarajevo, and spent 7 1/2 years at Guantanamo.

Boumediene, who worked for the Red Crescent Society (equivalent of the International Red Cross in Muslim countries), was arrested by Bosnian police in October 2001. Tapper reports:

"They search my car, my office, nothing. Cell phone, nothing. Nothing. Nothing," he said.

The charges were dropped, and the Bosnian courts ordered him and five others freed. But under pressure from the Bush administration, the Bosnian government handed him over to the U.S. military.

He was shackled, put on a military plane, and shipped to Guantanamo.

Two weeks later, in his State of the Union address, President Bush touted the arrests in Bosnia to show early progress in the war on terror.

"Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy," Bush said in his address. To this day, officials of the Bush administration have provided no credible evidence to back up that accusation.

Boumediene says he tried to be cooperative with his interrogators, figuring that if he told them the truth, it would quicken his release. He trusted the fairness of the Americans. But, he says, the fact that he had nothing to tell them was taken as a sign of uncooperativeness.

Further, he says they never asked him about any plots to blow up the embassies. They were only interested in what he knew about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, which was nothing. Nevertheless, he endured harsh treatment for 7 1/2 years and has only been released recently after a court order.

It was the Supreme Court's 5/4 ruling that gave Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge in court their detention that led to Boumediene's suit against Bush and his eventual release. He was held for 7 1/2 years but never charged with a crime, and no evidence was ever offered that he had committed one.

A family man who has lost seven years of his life, Boumediene didn't even recognize his two daughters, who were small children when he last saw them. His family has been reduced to poverty. Even so, he has apparently not been "radicalized" by his treatment and does not resent the American people. He is even understanding about the post-9/11 anxiety that led to our over-reaction:

"The first month, okay, no problem, the building, the 11 of September, the people, they are scared, but not 7 years. They can know who's innocent, who's not innocent, who's terrorist, who's not terrorist," he said.

"I give you 2 years, no problem, but not 7 years."

Those are not the words of a terrorist. He says he wants to try to forget Guantanamo, but his lawyer believes that compensation is owed him and plans to sue the government.

In the Supreme Court's 5/4 decision to grant habeas corpus, Antonin Scalia wrote a scathing dissent, saying that "allowing federal judges, rather than military officials, to release terror suspects could have disastrous consequences."

I would argue, rather, that what has led to disastrous consequences in this and many other cases is the bending, or outright flauting, of the law by members of the executive branch. It then becomes the duty of the judiciary to over-rule them. This decision was properly decided, and the margin is frightenly slim, meaning we're one vote away from giving a war-time president unlimited powers.

Our government presented no credible evidence against this man. His story rings true. I believe him. And I am ashamed of what my government did to him in my name.

Ralph

Sunday morning shorts

1. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says President Obama has passed the 3AM test. "Absolutely" !!! Not exactly eating crow, but she praised the president's performance and says she is honored to be serving with him.

2. Senator Richard Shelby was asked to explain his statement that the Obama administration is taking us down the road to socialism.

SHELBY: Well, obviously. So, they intervene last fall in the bank crisis. No one has ever done it on that scale before.

Er, Senator, last fall george bush was the president; Obama was only the president-elect.

3. On FoxNews, Bill Kristol says that the whole trip [Obama's] was useless and what's worse, it now guarantees Iran will get nukes and we are all going to die, and he's "given up on" attempting to stop Iran. And Charles Krauthammer says Obama gave "such a pass to Iran that he scared the other Arab states," and that he gave "the weakest statement on Iran by any American president."

Now, this is FoxNews as characterized by Jason Linkins (HuffPost), who tends to put a sardonic spin on things. But this is probably close to what they actually said.

As I've noted before, you can be safe by always expecting the opposite of what Bill Kristol says. And Krauthammer? He's a knee-jerk, neo-con, sour-pussed malcontent who seems to lack "empathy." No wonder he didn't make it as a psychiatrist.

Ralph