Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Picturing you running around the house screaming "i'm going blind" had me BBOMNOL
David, david, david, how the hell are ya buddy? It has been a long time hasn't it.
Do you really think Glenn doesn't remember exactly why he banned you? Picturing you going back and spending the time it took to dig dig dig and DIG out the Truth! Do you have any idea how foolish you look?
Otherwise keep that chip on your shoulder nice and straight. It's great for the posture and it might allow you to stick around until you melt down in another blazing fit of righteous tribal awareness.
Also Blowing Beer Out My Nose OL
To all appearances, Dawn Johnsen believes in the "rule of law," and has nothing but contempt for the Liar-in-Chief's "Justice" Department. Of course, she's got to remain true to her beliefs once she's in office. Let's hope so.
Senator Diane Feinstein--that corrupt, bought-and-paid-for piece of dreck--isn't happy about Leon Panetta for CIA Director. That's a mark in his favor, as far as I'm concerned.
I feel uplifted by Obama's choice of new OLC chief and head of CIA. The use of fear and presence of domestic terror are products of warrantless surveillance. As the veil of terror begins to lift and the signs of our democracy once again shine through, perhaps we can begin to work toward a saner reaction to the events following 9/11.
Will America ever become again a country that values individual rights and the right to privacy in the light of our advanced technology? How will we define Justice when warrantless surveillance establishes its own guilt outside our courts?
I wonder who the Chicago Times is talking about when they say "officials said"? True? Damage control? Ego boosting?
One advantage that Panetta, a former California congressman, would possess, officials said, is a close relationship with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the San Francisco Democrat who just this week began her tenure as the first female chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-010508-obama-panetta-cia-jan06,0,7789770.story
"It's all such a close call. The right people really were scorned and angered today.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."
Too right they are. But their petulance alarmingly indicates something else. It's a sign of how utterly compromised they have become. The less real power some people have the more neurotically important and more crucial it becomes to them that certain protocols real and imagined are observed. It can be evidence of displacement activity.
'why i will eat my cake if Obama appoints Hayden and if he does i will become Glenns Ghostwriter!
Monday, December 8, 2008 01:49 PM - Gen. Hayden and the claimed irrelevance of presidential appointments.
Don't forget Glenn 'Wettschulden sind Ehrenschulden' - so you don't have to make me your Ghostwriter anymore but you gladly get a pieceofcake!
Just a thought...
Given Obama's track record of inclusiveness and demonstrated social skills, I wonder if his "neglecting" to consult our fearless Democratic defenders of the intelligence community was deliberate? A "back of the hand" reminder? I can dream, can't I :-)
Dave
...Congress should pass a forward-looking resolution censuring President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for executive aggrandizements or abuses that have reduced Congress to vassalage and shredded the rule of law.
Nader and Fein need to rethink this, imo. Congress should have first initiated an impeachment proceeding against these two--and on conclusion, determined whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding. But regardless of what they found, congress should have then censured itself for criminal neglect.
A censure for the heads of the first and fourth branches of govt. by congress would have zero effect on future executive leaaders. And would only enshrine this congress as more pathetic than the last one. Which in reality is probably not possible within the laws of man, God, or nature.
Not a word from the OLC-designate on Waco? Ruby Ridge? I did read correctly, did I not, that she served in the Clinton Administration? No "outrage" to spare for the crimes of Democrats, huh?
Yeah, sure sounds like change a'comin ... plus ca change ... right?
Nothing about the plans already openly discussed by Obama with Senate and Congress to bilk the US taxpayers of a further trillion dollars?
But this is the woman who is going to say "No!" to the President? Who is going to keep him within the Constitutional limits of his position?
ha ha ha ha ... I do not know which is sadder: what is happening to Americans or their total commitment to kidding themselves about it ...
I guess you can't have one without the other.
Panetta: No Torture. No exceptions.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.panetta.html:
...what's wrong with a little waterboarding or electric shock?The simple answer is the rule of law. Our Constitution defines the rules that guide our nation. It was drafted by those who looked around the world of the eighteenth century and saw persecution, torture, and other crimes against humanity and believed that America could be better than that. This new nation would recognize that every individual has an inherent right to personal dignity, to justice, to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.
We have preached these values to the world. We have made clear that there are certain lines Americans will not cross because we respect the dignity of every human being. That pledge was written into the oath of office given to every president, "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." It's what is supposed to make our leaders different from every tyrant, dictator, or despot. We are sworn to govern by the rule of law, not by brute force.
We cannot simply suspend these beliefs in the name of national security. Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground.
We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.
From an observer up on the Hill by Josh Marshall - Panetta independent
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/01/really_a_mystery.php:
I think there is a lot more here than is being said. I believe that Feinstein did not want someone like Panetta who has a large and independent power base and network. If you get a career guy they are a lot easier to isolate and move around. Panetta has been around for a long time and has his own network. I actually think that it is a good choice. He knows how intelligence needs to be presented to the President - that is the critical issue here.The issue is not intell guy or non-intell guy. The big issue for Blair and Panetta is strategic or tactical orientation. We are fighting two wars and the warfighter always screams they don't have enough intel or enough of anything for that matter. The dice are so loaded for support to the warfighter that critical strategic intelligence for the President and other senior leaders goes wanting due to time constraints on collection assets. We need a significant re-orientation away from tactical support by CIA and other National agencies and back to their primary mission - direct intelligence support to the President.
The selection of Panetta, with a much wider and deeper power base than either of them, makes me hopeful in this regard. Panetta is a skilled operator, he knows how to get things done. He knows how to get a budget approved and to make the wheels of government work. He will be a force - both in the Administration and on the Hill -- much larger than any career guy could be. This is good. It gives the CIA the opportunity to re-create itself within the current structure.
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
