Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
a small indication that there's still some hope that the Obama administration might actually constitute a REAL change for the better.
It's not much, but it's better than mere glowing, generalized, visionary rhetoric.
If accurate, Feinstein and Rockefeller's reaction to the selection of Panetta as CIA Director serves as a ringing endorsement for the man.
My greatest recollection of Panetta is of his defense of Clinton's 1993 retroactive tax hike. Basically, the legislation passed in August but was retroactive to the first of the year. So, people suddenly discovered that they hadn't paid enough taxes from January thru August.
So, what does that have to do with Panetta? He defended the retroactive aspect with public statements that everyone should have set aside enough money because they should have known what was coming.
So, I think the guy is an a-hole. That might actually be a qualification for CIA director. He's obviously not afraid to piss of pretty much everyone.
I can only hope that he pisses of the lawless government operatives and lackeys.
I hope he doesn't decide to continue the bush spying/torture regime and piss of the few remaining civil liberties/rule of law aficionados.
My nightmare is that he renders bush, cheney, yoo, feinstein, etc. to gitmo and subjects them to the tender ministrations of Lynndie England. The nightmare aspect is that I'd be honor bound to protest the torture.
But wait!
Scalia says interrogation isn't torture! Maybe Lynndie can finally get to the truth about what those clowns did.
http://www.aclu.org/images/torture/asset_upload_file625_26068.pdf
Church Report, in case you don't already have it.
Glenn's link in the first graph answers most of the questions about what Newsweek has called "the most important government agency no one's ever heard of."
It was created by an act of Congress in 1934; and it was all all boy's club, all the way, until Dawn Johnsen got in there in 1996.
Most of the OLC ol' boys served two, three, or four years at most, except one. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist practically made a home of the place, serving as OLC chief from 1960-71. Antonin Scalia hung his hat there too, after Rehnquist, though for a shorter time.
Although the advice give you is sound, there is one more quirk to Salon's neolithic HTML parser that you should be aware of. The Salon Parser (SLP) introduces a paragraph tag for each hard carriage return in the text. However, after a <blockquote> tag SLP, for some unknown reason eats the first hard carriage return (presumably with some fava beans and a nice chianti). This is only important if what you are blockquoting has more than one paragraph. Thus if you type:
<blockquote>First Paragraph.
Second Paragraph.
Third Paragraph.</blockquote>
what you would expect is
First Paragraph.
Second Paragraph.
Third Paragraph.
but what you will get is
First Paragraph.
Second Paragraph.
Third Paragraph.
There are a couple of workarounds for this. You can use two <br> tags (forces a line break) in addition to a hard carriage return after the first paragraph:
<blockquote>First Paragraph.<br><br>Second Paragraph.
Third Paragraph.</blockquote>
will get you
First Paragraph.
Second Paragraph.
Third Paragraph.
However a much simpler workaround is simply to put a hard carriage return after the <blockquote> tag. Thus
<blockquote>
First Paragraph.
Second Paragraph.
Third Paragraph.</blockquote>
gets you the same thing.
The SLP simply throws away the first carriage return no matter where you put it after the <blockquote> tag so if you put it in front of your text it doesn't care.
Sorry if this is more than you wanted to know about <blockquote> tags.
an Obama appointment I can get behind 100%!!
Go get 'em Ms. Johnsen!
Amazing, isn't it - it's always about them. They're all upset because Obama didn't get their permission first -- and because he brought in an outsider rather than some CIA hack beholden to the Rockefeller/Feinstein feifdom -- so they go and undercut Obama and Panetta publicly over nothing more than their own feelings of resentment. What empty, little people they are.
It could bery well be more than "nothing more than their own feelings of resentment" at work here.
If they're in this crap up to their ears, they might actually have a personal/legalstake in not having an investigation into torture or they might have a personal/legal stake in not allowing the courts to decide the matter of wiretapping.
If they're on record of approving the lawbreaking (as Cheney claims), they might end up having to hire attorneys.
Too bad.
this ent the last tahm Mizz Fahnstahn's petticoats get bunched foah hah.
Jay's wedgie suits him too. It goes well with his permanently pained expression. ;-}
http://www.appletreeblog.com/wp-content/2007/10/rockefeller-money.jpg
It could bery well be more than "nothing more than their own feelings of resentment" at work here.If they're in this crap up to their ears, they might actually have a personal/legalstake in not having an investigation into torture or they might have a personal/legal stake in not allowing the courts to decide the matter of wiretapping.
Yeah - that's a good point. They want someone beholden to them, whom they can control, and making sure disclosures don't get out of hand -- especially ones that reflect poorly on them -- probably is a priority.
"Instead of trying to negotiate a compromise with Congress that would meet both our intelligence and privacy concerns, it is easier to threaten with fear."
Because it worked. When things really had to move, Cheney et al. would:
1. round up the usual congressional suspects (the 'gang of X');
2. get them into a small room;
3. scare the shit out of them with dire information;
4. schedule the signing ceremony for the resulting bill.
I can think of two occasions where this was done--FISA wiretapping, and the 700 billion bailout bill. Maybe torture as well.
Works like a charm.
Ironically, the Congressional leaders went along with Bush's tactic with fairly minimal back-talk. But now that the Democrats have one of their own in the WH, they feel free to bicker.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
