Sorry, there's only one "ing" in breathtakingly.

And, I know, "don't call me Shirley."

It has always struck me that there is nothing more blindly narcissistic than the penchant of right wing talking heads, who have been retained to write regular columns in "liberal" papers, to complain about "media bias". It isn't that the "liberal press" shuns them, seeing as how they're all on staff or retainer -- it must just be that they're offended that the "liberal press" doesn't feature their tripe every single day and is thus depriving the country of their indisputable wisdom on a wider swath of topics. How can we live without their advice on the days they aren't already paid to provide it? What an evil consipiracy.

It pisses me off with regularity to have to wade through my LA Times op-ed pages when there is some bile bylined by Jonah Goldberg daring me to ruin my morning by reading it; if my LA Times is "liberal biased", why the hell do I have to put up with this?

Once again, Woody Allen put this all in perspective -- while wandering a bookstore in Annie Hall: "I heard Commentary and Dissent have merged and formed Dissentary". Couldn't help but think of that when hearing about Kristol's new "think" tank to replace his wildly, wildly pathetic neocon circle jerk "foundation" from the Bush days.

And in related news, the sky is still up.

Arrest them. Try them. Convict them. Imprison them.

If, as Scott Horton reports, the Rethugs are threatening to "go nuclear" and filibuster over the proposed appointment of Dawn Johnsen to head OLC -- because of these shameful memos -- then I say make 'em. And that, in turn, will set the table for international prosecution of Bush for war crimes.

If the leadership of the "opposition party" is so publicly bent on advocacy of torture and the protection of those who ordered it from legal consequence, there will be no reason for the international community to further await the American response to the clear demands of international law.

If the Rethugs press this "threat", then Obama should appoint Ms. Johnsen to a non-confirmable position as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, assigned with the formation of a task force to coordinate the administration's compliance with international tribunal inquiries concerning torture and other war crimes. Cooperate with the international tribunals. These subject memos ultimately will come out, of course, but even without them a competent authority could and will reach a just evaluation of the conduct.

I would really, really like to see an actual public debate in which some of these Rethugs get their "first swing" to mug about "moving forward" and "good intentions", then somebody with half a brain asks them how they respond to the specific articulations of the applicable legal principles which prohibit torture and decidedly reject, point by point, all the stupid excuses that the right has been offering.

I have a question for the debate: why do these people think that the nations of the world have gotten together to issue international principles banning torture and rejecting exactly the excuses ("they meant well") that are being suggested here in America now? Do these people think that the motivation behind the world's governments agreeing to ban torture is to prohibit torture in business transactions? [Remember Steve Martin's maid being shot by firing squad as a "substantial penalty for early withdrawal" from a savings account in "The Jerk"?] These laws exist to restrict governmental action, first and foremost. So exactly what is the Rethugs' point when they argue that America's government is somehow exempt from such clearly-stated principles, on any ground whatsoever?

Obama must not cave on this. Take them to the mat. There is no justification whatsoever for torture. There is less justification for any Rethug taking a concerted position that a commitment to enforcing the laws -- including those against torture -- is a basis for engaging in a filibuster. Make them do it. It's disgraceful and they can't do it for long without demonstrating just how morally and intellectually indefensible this is.

Perhaps the scariest thing about this DOJ brief is that it was actually filed on April 3. I went to double-check the .pdf linked to the article, hoping against hope that it was only reported on April 3, but had actually been signed and filed on April 1. As a joke.

May the courts reject this atrocious attack on everything we know to be true. It is not a basis for dismissal of a lawsuit against the government that the lawsuit might inconvenience the government.

I'm sorry, but looking at the still of the clip appended to this piece, I see Mr. Bolten. This is the guy who the Bush Administration sent as our Ambassador to the United Nations and who famously referred to the UN as "irrelevant". And he's a spokesperson interviewed to come down on Obama for suggesting that maybe the US might have been perceived as "arrogant"? Good choice.

The folks who put together this type of montage of right wing bloviation may have a thankless task, but I still can't bring myself to watch it.....