Only Women are Not Virgins

An Egyptian general has admitted to CNN that the Egyptian military did sexually assault verify the non-virginity of women it had arrested at a large protest right after the ouster of former dictator Mubarak on March 9.  Don't worry though, the general said the women "were not like your daughter or mine."  No these women were clearly living like they were equal to men.

Why did they feel the need to verify the women's virginity?  Easy answer.  They wanted to make sure the women couldn't later claim they were sexually assaulted and lost their virginity during their incarceration.  They sexually assaulted them for evidence to use against charges of sexual assault.  They are barbarians!

Honestly what do you say about something as disgusting as this?  It's not even fun to joke about it.

Return to the Mailbag

It's been a while since I've posted some of my reader emails. Usually it's to poke fun at the quality of mail I receive. This time I'm going to do it to answer a few questions posed by readers.

Reader SY writes:

Chris, as I recall you were nearly spot on for the 2008 election. Who do you think will seek and win the GOP nod this time around. And what are their chances against your man BO?

Backed up in Cleveland,

Well Backed up in Cleveland, glad you asked. As I recall I was way off last presidential cycle. I vividly remember saying it was Gore's year. I thought he would get the nod and select Obama as his VP. I saw that as an unbeatable ticket. By August of 2007 I finally realized Gore was not going to do it. After that I really thought Hillary had it tied up but thought if Obama jumped in he would be incredibly hard to beat.  Though you might be referring to my general election analysis in which I would put my map against anybody's.  I missed Obama's electoral college total by one.

I also remember laughing at all the pundits who said the Hillary and Obama primary would destroy Democratic moral with infighting. They were way off because Democrats were so united to take back the White House we would have supported whoever our candidate was. Being the Obama supporter I was since day one, I would have had no problems voting for Hillary in the general had she won the primary. And the millions of Hillary supporters, obviously, were pleased to oblige.

What Republican will seek and win the primary? I have no clue. At lot can happen in a year. Currently Romney seems to be atop the leader board. But he was at the very same place in 2007 as well. He's a moderate that has tried very hard to say the necessary crazy things to get past a Republican primary but he has yet to overcome his actual record on social issues and health care. My guess is he'll meet the same fate this time around as well. Not to mention, I don't see a Mormon winning a Republican primary any time soon.

Palin? She definitely has the wacko support. Other than that this woman is a complete joke. There's no reason we should ever consider a Palin presidency. The same applies to Michelle Bachmann.

Herman Cain? No chance a black man would ever make it out of a GOP primary. I know Republicans think it would be a great idea and a great way to split up the black vote for which I will offer two words, Alan Keyes. The Illinois GOP thought the very same thing to beat Obama in 2004. Black folks stuck to their Dem ticket.

Pawlenty? Very possible.

Ron Paul? Won't happen. Republicans no more want Ron Paul leading them than they want Oprah.

The chances of beating President Obama? A lot can happen in a year. But if the election were held tomorrow there isn't a candidate that would beat him.  I'm no soothsayer and don't want to be.  If I were I sure wouldn't be writing on a blog.  I'd be at the teletrack watching the ponies. 

Memorial Day 2011

First one post bin-Laden sure is sweet.

The Sheep Speak

Speaker John Boehner says losing the 40-year Republican stronghold of NY-26 was more about third party candidates and a not so good GOP candidate than about Medicare.

That's fine. He may be correct. I don't doubt at all the third party candidate helped the Democrats. Like I said yesterday, anyone who says this one special election in NY is a bellwether is foolish.  Given that the Senate GOP voted to end Medicare yesterday, I also don't doubt Republicans view losing NY-26 as a small anomaly.  If they thought otherwise they had ample opportunity yesterday to not vote in favor of abolishing Medicare.

I'm perfectly content going into an election year with Republicans thinking privatizing Medicare isn't a big electoral issue.

Deficit Chart Applied to Debt and why it's dumb to continue it

Here's something you won't see on Fox News.

I've lost track of how many times I've stated to Republicans and here on this blog that today's deficit was inherited from George Bush.  It wasn't something Barack Obama created.  When I say this stuff to my Republican friends it's like talking to a wall.  They kind of acknowledge it but then go right into saying something about how it wasn't really until Democrats took back Congress in 2007 did the deficit really rise.  Quite insane really.  They refuse to believe Republican policies led this country to a massive budget deficit.  Actually, I wrote about this whole thing just the other day.

In the same regard, the national debt is intrinsically linked to the budget deficit.  And it's clear to see from the chart above the biggest contributors to the mammoth debt we have today are direct results of Republican George Bush policies.  The greatest contributor to the debt is of course the Bush tax cuts, which President Obama has continued.  The next two are the Bush wars, which President Obama has continued.

Not only is it insane for Republicans to keep whining about a deficit and debt they created but it's probably more insane to keep continuing those policies like President Obama has.  If you are really concerned about the deficit the last thing you would do is 1) have voted to enact the policies that caused it in the first place and 2) adopt those very same budget busting policies as your own.  The whole thing smacks of some really stupid stuff.  Either you want to fix this thing or you don't.  But don't keep misleading people when the reality is very little has been done to change the policies you want to blame on other people.

Like Sheep

Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) put Senate Republicans in a hard spot today. Either break with your party, something Republicans have rarely done in the last decade, or vote to end Medicare. 40 Senate Republicans voted to end Medicare and for the Rep. Paul Ryan budget.

There can be no doubt the vote was scheduled by Harry Reid on purpose. It was intended to put Republicans on record. And now there can be no doubt, the official platform of the current GOP is to replace Medicare with a privatized voucher plan that CBO has reported won't keep pace with inflation and will cause health care costs for senior citizens to rise sharply.  Like sheep to slaughter is how George Washington would describe it.

Joplin Before and After

Count your blessings folks, these are some of the grimmest before and after pictures of anything I've ever seen.

Click here to see them all.  Just un-fn-believable.

Dems Pickup House Seat

The actual pic Lee sent in response to the ad

Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY) was forced to resign after he was caught trying to arrange some sort of sexual encounter with a lady who had posted an ad on Craigslist.  I guess you could say he screwed himself out of a house seat.  Because of his resignation, there was a special election held yesterday to fill his seat.  The area has long been held by a Republican, for over 40 years actually.  So a mere non-sex scandal-- technically the lady wasn't posting an ad for sex-- wouldn't be near enough to consider the open seat a pick up for Democrats.

After all, this seat had remained in Republican hands through the 2006 and 2008 cycles that saw huge Dem pickups elsewhere in the country.  So there had to be something else affecting the district.  The only other change maker was a very aggressive plan by Democrat Kathy Hochul who was announced the winner last night against Republican Jane Corwin.

Her plan consisted of making Republican efforts to dismantle Medicare her centerpiece.  Throughout the campaign Hochul mentioned every time she could that Corwin supported Paul Ryan's budget plan which would turn Medicare into a voucher system.

As we all know, Medicare is not a voucher system and turning it into one renders it obsolete.  Medicare is a single payer health insurance system that allows senior citizens access to government-run health insurance at comparable rates to the private market.  The problem is, senior citizens can't purchase and/or afford private plans because they are considered high risk.  The result leaves millions of seniors without insurance.  Enter the need for Medicare and why it's a popular government program.  It's popularity is huge with seniors who benefit greatly from it and it just so happens seniors love to vote almost as much as they love their government-run health care.  And voters chose the lady who supported keeping Medicare intact.

It's impossible to state that this is a sign of things to come.  Anyone who says that is foolish I think.  But it is a definite model for how Democrats should run their campaigns in 2012.  The GOP lined up and voted for Paul Ryan's budget plan that dismantles Medicare.  It is officially their alternative plan for this country.  There's no reason voters shouldn't be made aware of it and no reason why Democrats can't use it to unite against.  Medicare or Republicare?  You decide.


Related articles

• Medicare key to shocking Dem win in NY House race (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Romney Was Against His Own Idea, Only Makes Sense in GOP Fantasy World

This is just classic Republicanism.

Mitt Romney, probably the GOP lead contender for 2012, is now saying it was his idea first to bailout the auto industry.

Via a spokesman for Romney's perennial campaign:

"...the president’s plan was modeled after one Mr. Romney advocated in 2008. “Mitt Romney had the idea first,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, citing the Times opinion article.

“You have to acknowledge that. He was advocating for a course of action that eventually the Obama administration adopted.”

That's odd. As Think Progress makes note, in 2009 Romney said the federal bailout of the auto industry would destroy the industry and exclaimed it would be a huge mistake. He even wrote an op-ed entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt."  So either Romney was against his own idea before he was for it or ever thunk it, or he's doing the usual Republican revisionist mucky muck.

When things are good, it's always because of Republican ideas. Even though nothing in history squares with that notion, Republicans simply rewrite history so they can pretend they have been right all along.

John Edwards About to Get Indicted

The DOJ has given the go ahead to file criminal charges on former top Democratic pol John Edwards for allegedly breaking campaign finance laws.

I was, as long time readers will recall, a John Edwards fan.  What a shame.

Storms

We are poised for some bad storms today where I live. If there's a stoppage in posts that's probably why. The front that devastated parts of Oklahoma and Arkansas last night are heading this way.

Quickies- The President Was Born an Irishman Edition

Seems here lately my Monday's are not what they used to be.

• Now me and the president have something else in common: we've both drank Guinness in Ireland.

• The president's grandpa's grandpa came from Moneygall, Ireland.  As the story goes, "Falmouth Kearney, the great-great-great grandfather of President of the United States Barack Obama, emigrated from Moneygall to New York City at the age of 19 in 1850 and eventually resettled in Tipton County, Indiana.[7] Kearney's father, Joseph, had been the village shoemaker, then a wealthy skilled trade. Indeed the whole Kearney family emigrated to Ross County, Ohio in the first half of the 19th century."

• My great grandpa was born in County Donegal.

• Say what you want about all the accomplishments of the Obama administration. His stimulus, health care reform, killing bin Laden, all are something any president would covet. But his speech outlining Israeli and Palestinian peace, I think, will be his most talked about moment. Call it a turning point if you will.  It's refreshing to see a president just come right out and state obvious facts about the way forward.

• 25,000 plus turned out in Dublin to hear the president.  That's a huge crowd in Ireland in case anyone is wondering.

• Law enforcement officials are stating evidence links DSK to the sexual assault of a hotel maid.  Hummm, wondering what evidence that is.  Just what American's need.  Another blue dress moment.

Hoyer Says What Needs to be Said

Rep. Steny Hoyer finally said what Dems should be saying on every television appearance and radio station in the country: the national debt we have today comes largely from Republican policies.

In other words, despite what Republicans are trying to claim, the debt was not created by Barack Obama or by Democratic policies alone. In fact, an overwhelming majority of the debt is a direct result of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. It is a result of the people the media labels as fiscal conservatives.

Now I know Republicans don't like to face up to it, but who cares. Let them whine and cry.  Let them really try to dodge this one.

Fact of the matter is, decades worth of Republican policies that were not paid for added trillions of dollars to the national debt.  And then the Bush Recession hit.

Republicans are Doing Exactly What Reagan Doesn't Want Them to Do

It's an odd figment of modern America that Republicans claim to adore President Reagan so much. They credit him for many things that he just never did. And for the things he actually did do, they ignore.

For example, as president, Reagan once faced a critical time in America's debt outlook. He tripled the national debt. In order to do that, Congress had to raise the debt ceiling. As Congress always does, they like to show the public just how in charge they are of government when it comes to this stuff. So instead of just allowing President Reagan to run up trillions in debt, they made a mockery out of it and then finally caved and raised the debt ceiling.

Not raising the debt ceiling is serious stuff. It will cause the American government to default, which is something that has never happened. That's not good. And here's what Reagan said about it.

“This country cannot be allowed to default on its financial obligations for the first time in history,” Reagan warned. “This would be unthinkable.”

About $5 trillion of today's debt is from Reagan's presidency, another $5 trillion is from George W. Bush's presidency. Maybe if we told Republicans the debt we would be defaulting on overwhelmingly comes from their prized leaders they would quit playing games with it. Probably not. But I don't know why in the world, in this whole debate about the national debt, we aren't talking about where the debt actually came from. It came from the fiscal conservatives who are now telling us defaulting on it would be okay for a little while.

On what planet are the people responsible for running up trillions of dollars of debt called fiscal conservatives and allowed any sort of credibility when it comes to money?

Things Really Aren't Going Well for Gingrich

I've spent some time in Iowa. And if there is any place I would think a right wing nutjob like Newt Gingrich would fit in, it would be right in the middle of the Iowa GOP. I stand corrected.

Ten Years of Debt in One Graph

Just 10 years ago the Congressional Budget Office estimated the federal government would be completely out of debt and have a $2.3 trillion bank account. Crazy, huh? Consider we now have hit our debt limit and have the largest debt in terms of GDP since the end of WWII.

This assumption was based on a few things. One, the Clinton-era tax rate was left alone. Two, no 9/11 and two endless wars. Three, amongst other things, no Great Recession circa 2007-2009.

Of course it's very difficult to predict the future and CBO estimates are by no means a predictor of future events.  It's merely saying if we continue on the path we are on, which was running budget surpluses and paying down our debt, in ten years time it's very possible we will look like this.  Easier said than done, yes.  But compare that to the most recent CBO 10 year outlook and I'll take the 2001 edition any day.

So what in the world happened? How did we get to the $11 trillion in public debt we now have today? Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative set out to explain how it all happened. Here's what they discovered, and trust me it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand it.  It's pretty basic stuff.

In their study, Pew states, "[b]etween 2001 and 2011, about two-thirds (68 percent) of the $12.7 trillion growth in federal debt has been due to new legislation. Forty percent of this legislative growth was the result of tax cuts enacted after January 2001, and 60 percent resulted from spending increases.

Technical and economic revisions combined caused about one quarter (27 percent) of the growth, and changes in other means of financing accounted for 6 percent."

Wow, sounds like government happened.  Almost 70% of the federal debt is directly contributed to new legislation-- legislation that greatly expanded government and was largely never paid for.  What legislation could that possibly be?  I mean I know we have a Big Government, islamofascistcommieliberal president right now, but that's only two years of the 10.  Something has had to have taken place these last ten years to have increased the debt so much.

Pew lists the top 6 legislative policies that contributed the most to the debt in case anybody is wondering.

1. 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts
2. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
3. Bush's Medicare Part D expansion
4. Bush's TARP
5. Obama's stimulus in 2009
6. the 2010 extension of the Bush tax cuts

Five of the 6 are bona fide Republican policies.  The Obama stimulus, which contributes about 6% to the change in the debt, is a firm reaction to the bankrupting policies of the 8 years prior.  In other words, if it hadn't been for the Bush tax cuts, the completely unfunded Medicare Part D expansion, the two ongoing, endless wars and Bush's socialist TARP program, there wouldn't have been a need for the 2009 stimulus.  Or better said: without 8 years of Republican rule, the 2009 stimulus legislation would have never happened or been required.

To be certain, the economic downturn contributed greatly to the debt as well.  The recession led to less federal tax revenue and more spending on unemployment benefits.  Naturally, the revenue loss would have been much less, too, had the Clinton-era tax rate not been replaced with the Bush tax rate.  So again, the Republican policy not only created huge deficits but created much larger deficits during the recession than would have been under Democratic policy.

The sources of debt are pretty clear.  Government-busting legislation and excessive spending.

Deep Thought

Judging by the implosion of all the Republican candidates for president, Trump, Huckabee, and now Gingrich, is it possible that Sarah Palin will win by default?

Pew Research Center Political Typology Test

I can't seem to find any embed codes on this political typology test so I'll just post a screen shot of my results.

To enlarge it just click on the image.  It says I scored as a New Coalition Democrat.

I've never heard the term actually.  If it means I'm a new kind of Democrat then I'm not so sure of that.  If it means I'm a moderate Dem then sure I agree with that.

What's interesting about the results is it lets you compare your group to others on certain issues.  The whole thing takes about a minute and worth checking out, just to see if you fall where you think you might.  I think where I differ and what surprises me most is my relationship to the New Coalition Democrats and social issues.

34% favor allowing gays to marry
71% favor gun control
56% favor keeping marijuana illegal

I don't fit into those at all.  I support allowing gays to marry.  I support 2nd Amendment right to own guns and believe it's more important than controlling guns.  I also support legalizing marijuana.  I guess I'm surprised that "New Democrats" would be opposed to all that, especially gay marriage and pot.

Moral Crusader Rick Santorum

I have a friend that works for Senator Bob Casey of PA. Back when I would get to talk to this friend quite a bit, Casey was not yet a senator and was running against then Senator Rick Santorum. So my friend would always have these hilarious stories about Santorum and his quest for Biblical morals to be legislated and applied to everyone but him of course. I miss those stories.  I really do.

Losing in 2006 by a huge margin hasn't silenced Santorum's political agenda one bit. He laughingly ran for president two years later and is poised to run again in '12.  Santorum, as a servant of God, has been pro-torture for quite some time.  He believes waterboarding led to the killing of bin Laden.  Like I said, he believes in the moral values of the Bible.

Yesterday, though, was just a sad day in general for Santorum's torture views.  And that's really saying a lot about a guy who in 2006 declared we found WMD in Iraq.

Speaking to Justin Elliot at Salon, Santorum said he believes John McCain doesn't understand how torture works.

I don't, everything I've read shows that we would not have gotten this information as to who this man was if it had not been gotten information from people who were subject to enhanced interrogation. And so this idea that we didn't ask that question while Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was being waterboarded, he doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they're broken, they become cooperative. And that's when we got this information. And one thing led to another, and led to another, and that's how we ended up with bin Laden.

Quite incredible really. John McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for five and a half years. McCain was routinely subjected to a state-sanctioned torture policy that left him permanently disabled. He's had both arms and legs broken numerous times from being tortured. If there is anyone who understands how torture works it's John McCain. But because McCain is against having the United States of America renew its Bush-era torture policy, and rightly believes torture did not lead to the killing of bin Laden, Santorum has to put him in his place and not only question his patriotism but his devotion to this country. There probably isn't a person alive who has done more or endured more for America than McCain. In Rick Santorum's world, opposing Bush policies is enough to discredit all that.

*Update:

Santorum, as usual, has said his comments about McCain were taken out of context.  He told CNN:

I disagree with Senator McCain's view that the enhanced interrogation techniques used on a select few high-value terrorist detainees were unsuccessful nor do I believe they amounted to torture," Santorum said in a statement Wednesday. "For anyone to infer my disagreement with Senator McCain's policy position lessens my respect for his service to our country and all he had to endure is outrageous and unfortunate.

Saying McCain doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works is like saying Clinton doesn't know how impeachment works. Luckily for the entire nation, and world at large, Charlie Sheen has a greater chance of winning the presidency.

Stewart v. O'Reilly

I'm glad to see Jon Stewart standing up to Fox News and more specifically to tough guy wannabe Bill O'Reilly. Everyone else runs away from Fox hoping not to make them mad. But Stewart, though he is a fake journalist, is actually doing the job of real journalism by taking Fox News to task for their biased media coverage.



The video is hilarious at times but more than that it's just good to see. One thing Stewart won't even say is that O'Reilly's biggest complaint about inviting a rapper to the White House is that O'Reilly just doesn't like rap or the president. Combining the two, a rapper with a black president all together at what has always been a mansion for white people and white music, sends Fox News and tough guy O'Reilly over the edge.

Frankly, there isn't anyone this president could invite or anything he could do that Fox News would agree with. That's the basis of Stewart's appearance no doubt.  It's just worth repeating, however.

Quickies- Monday's Suck Edition

Sorry folks but I've been busy as can be lately. You'll just have to settle for a quickie.

• All it took for Trump's presidential extravaganza to run out of steam was a simple dose of reality.

• Remember a few weeks ago when Republicans almost shut down government because they wanted to shrink government, cut spending, and take us back to pre-2008 spending levels? CBO says their much touted $38 billion in spending cuts will actually increase spending by $3 billion. In other words, had Republicans just shut up and quit with their phony core principle stump speeches, the feds would have actually spent less.

• Wonder why the Dow has been stagnant?  “The full consequences of a default – or even the serious prospect of default – by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar.”-- 1983 President Reagan when warning Congress about not raising America's debt limit.

• Must read health care reform article: "Bad News for Mail Robbers: The Obvious Constitutionality of Health Care Reform."  Oh yeah it's written by an actual real Libertarian, not a Paultard.

• In case there are still any retards left who still believe torture led to the killing of bin Laden, CIA Director Leon Panetta unequivocally stated in a private letter the couriers name was first learned from a detainee not in American custody.  Great work by Greg Sargent on this one.  Will it quieten the pro-torture chickenhawks in the GOP?  Not a chance.

*Update:

Atrios, as only Atrios could, makes a quick explanation for the Reagan quote above: "Actual Reagan is irrelevant, it's the mythical Reagan inside their heads that's important. And he, magically, tells them exactly what they want to hear." 

Very true.  We have to remember, in the Republican Fantasy World, Reagan not only shrunk government, cut spending and raised revenues but he also never raised the debt limit.  Of course, as anyone with half a brain or all their chromosomes will tell you, Reagan didn't do any of that stuff.  But we aren't dealing with sane people here.  We're dealing with Republicans and we can throw basic sanity right out the window.

First Bush Interview Post bin Laden

Taking a break from my scantly clad women posting of which Blogger fully endorses because nothing serious is allowed to take place on its servers, former President George W. Bush finally spoke today to ABC News about the death of bin Laden. I think it's worth the break in breasts to watch his interview.



In it Bush says he was eating souffle at a restaurant when he was interrupted with the news that President Obama wanted to speak with him. What the heck is souffle? Did he really say the SEALS asked his permission to go into Pakistan? Don't think that's going to help his already terrible legacy any.

Honoring Blogger

To honor Blogger's uselessness, I'm going to resort to only posting items for which the internet was invented.

This should get us through the day boys

BLOGGER SUCKS UPDATE

Here's Blogger's pathetic excuse for what happened.

Here’s what happened: during scheduled maintenance work Wednesday night, we experienced some data corruption that impacted Blogger’s behavior. Since then, bloggers and readers may have experienced a variety of anomalies including intermittent outages, disappearing posts, and arriving at unintended blogs or error pages. A small subset of Blogger users (we estimate 0.16%) may have encountered additional problems specific to their accounts. Yesterday we returned Blogger to a pre-maintenance state and placed the service in read-only mode while we worked on restoring all content: that’s why you haven’t been able to publish. We rolled back to a version of Blogger as of Wednesday May 11th, so your posts since then were temporarily removed. Those are the posts that we’re in the progress of restoring.

I have a WordPress account. This might be a good time to move everything over to that.

I've actually considered doing it a number of different times. Last time I had trouble with Blogger all my comments were deleted. It took about two months to retrieve everything. This time it's only three posts but still. I actually pay for the hosting services so it gets frustrating. Not to mention Blogger always seems to have temporary login issues. And their mobile blogging platform is terrible. And don't even get me started on the templates. They suck. WordPress has much better templates to choose from. I mainly stay with Blogger simply because I like Google. This could be the last interference that drives me away.

BLOGGER SUCKS

I HATE BLOGGER!!!!!!


THIS MIGHT BE MY LAST STRAW WITH GOOGLE'S BLOGGER. THREE POSTS HAVE BEEN DELETED.

President Obama is Right to Tout the Success of His Terror Policy

Excellent rundown by Adam Serwer at The Plum Line about how President Obama has every right to tout the killing of bin Laden in stump speeches.

Let's be honest here. Bush failed to get bin Laden. He failed miserably at it. He put Afghanistan and the hunt for the person responsible for 9/11 on the back burner. Then in 2005, Bush turned the back burner completely off by dismantling the CIA team responsible for hunting bin Laden. Bush's war in Iraq was way more important to him and his cronies than was September 11th and the destruction wrought by Osama bin Laden and his terror organization.  It took a president that was focused and competent enough to handle the mission to actually accomplish the task.

Republicans know this and it irks them to their core.  They know failing to get bin Laden was always going to be a dark cloud over their reign.  But they thought if their Great Leader Bush couldn't do it then no one could.  They were wrong.

Because they were so wrong and so incompetent they want to treat the killing of bin Laden as they treat every other issue, pretend history happened differently.  They want to pretend Bush deserves credit for bin Laden's killing because of his torture program, which is just absurd.  They want to pretend they never publicized the attacks of 9/11 and didn't keep America in a permanent state of fear to keep power, as Serwer so aptly reminds us.

The president who actually led us back to being focused on the terror organization responsible for 9/11 has every right to tout his success.

Related articles

• Richard Clarke: Capturing Bin Laden 'Not One Of Their Priorities' For Clinton, Bush (mediaite.com)

Gas Prices

Honestly I would rather see the president invest his time and energy into fighting high gas prices rather than rehashing immigration reform.

Killing bin Laden Was Legal and Torture Isn't

One of the more comical reactions I've read from Republicans about the killing of Osama bin Laden is that Democrats are being hypocritical for celebrating his death while arguing against torture as a state-sanctioned policy of the United States.  We can kill somebody, we just can't torture them is the angle of the argument.

This is silly on a number of levels.  It's also a very simple debate that really doesn't require much thought.  Bin Laden was a target of war--a war that was authorized in 2001 by a democratically elected government and put into motion by the President of the United States.  The authorization specifically states:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

By tracking bin Laden to a country that was harboring him and killing him on the battle field is completely legal under both U.S. law and international; it's also completely reasonable given the destruction bin Laden levied against the United States on September 11th.

Now you will notice no where in the Congressional Authorization does it say anything about being able to torture terrorists responsible for 9/11.  That's because torture is not only illegal in America but also internationally.  Capturing alleged members of al Qaeda on the battlefield is perfectly legal.  Capturing them on the battlefield and then submitting them to torture is not.  Coincidentally, killing your enemy on the battlefield is legal, which is what we did to bin Laden. There is nothing hypocritical about it.

It's perfectly credible to be against torture as a state-sanctioned policy of the United States and in favor of killing the enemy on the field of battle, a battle that was completely within the realms of national and international law.

It's So Easy Democrats Can't Figure it Out

Think Progress has a nifty timeline of events leading up to the killing of Osama bin Laden. The whole thing is incomplete, however.

Why start with Clinton? I mean I'm glad to see TP taking the debate back to Clinton and not pretending like George W. Bush was the first president to target bin Laden. But the facts clearly show had it not been for President Reagan arming, funding and supplying intelligence to bin Laden we wouldn't have had an enemy to track and kill in the first place.

Do you really think Republicans would not be talking about Clinton creating bin Laden had he did what Reagan did???  When we complain about Democrats having a terrible messaging problem, this is what we mean.  It's really a totally lost fact if we don't take this back to Reagan.

Tea Baggers Want Bigger Debt Over Gays

Tea Bagger leader and founder of one of their many splinter groups, William Temple, says his tea bagger group may support a higher debt ceiling in place of getting rid of the queers in the military.  Oh yeah, he said all this while dressed as George Washington.  Wheee!!  Can't wait for 2012!

Quickies

• Hilarious!  Politico reports opposition to the non-existent threat of sharia law has become a staple amongst GOP presidential candidates.  Repeal Health Care for 32 million Americans, Abolish Medicare, Ban Sharia!!  How can anyone vote Republican?

• A preacher in Pennsylvania has been caught in a web of lies about being a Navy Seal.  The truth is, he wasn't.  My guess is he's not going to be the only person this happens to.

• Newt Gingrich's third wife of whom was his mistress when Newt was busy impeaching President Clinton, is poised to play a central role in his presidential run.  No doubt his campaign will focus on his usual issues of moral values, small government and his belief in God.

• Remember Republicans don't want you to mention Iraq in the context that it allowed bin Laden to roam free.  If we are to mention Iraq it's only to be in the context that Saddam was a threat and we got him.

• Great read from the libertarian CATO Institute: "How Bush Lost bin Laden."

Condi Rice Still Wrong on Iraq

Despite Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11, like the Bushies led us to believe. Despite Iraq not having WMD, like they led us to believe. Despite the fact 8 years later we are still occupying Iraq and spending billions every month, which is not the "matter of weeks" they told us it would be (or that it would pay for itself). Despite the fact that we were not welcomed as liberators but as enemies and that we unleashed a brutal civil war in that country. Despite nothing about Iraq the Bushies told us turned out to be true.  Set all that aside for a second and just concede former Secretary of State Rice's points that even though they were sort of kind of wrong about some stuff nevertheless Saddam still posed a threat a to America and the Middle East.  Just concede it for a moment.

Alright Dr. Rice and all you other Bush fans, you're right.  I get it. He was a threat.  Not a threat with WMD and a relationship with the terrorist that attacked us on 9/11 but a threat in some sort of weird way that he was a terrible dictator who punished his very own people but was powerless outside of his country.  So a threat he was.

However, all that overlooks one huge and important point.  Invading Iraq turned our attention and resources away from Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden.  That's why we didn't find him and kill him until 5 days ago.

Whatever threat Saddam posed it was nothing compared to the threat of what happened on 9/11 and the person who was responsible.  But Bush and his administration saw it as being way more important than that.  Which is why they waived off Bin Laden and chose Iraq.  And because of that our entire country paid a dear and lasting price.  So you can have your threat but you cannot possibly argue that invading Iraq did allow for bin Laden and the people actually responsible for 9/11 to free.

Huckabee Almost Gets Honest About Reagan

Speaking about the current crop of Republican presidential contenders on Fox News today, probable Republican candidate and Fox News employee, Mike Huckabee, stated it would be almost impossible for Reagan to be nominated by the modern GOP.  And he almost told the whole truth:

HUCKABEE: Because he raises taxes as governor, he made deals with Democrats, he compromised on things in order to move the ball down the field. As president, he gave amnesty to 7 million illegal immigrants. There were many things that would have been anathema. People speak of Reagan as if he was absolutely steadfast. He was in his convictions, but you have to govern in a way that is different that is different than the way you campaign.

Much to Huck's omitting, Reagan raised taxes as president too, numerous times.  He also tripled the national debt.  He also never once shrunk government or cut spending.  It's nice to see Huck coming to terms with facts but he still has a long way to go.

My theory, though, is Reagan could easily still get nominated for president by the GOP because Republicans do not care one bit about actually doing the things they talk about.  They just want to talk about them.  To think that Republicans just now started talking about shrinking government and controlling spending is a farce of historical proportions.  They've always claimed to stand for such principles, even during Reagan's era.  Heck, Reagan as a candidate said he would privatize Social Security and shrink government.  He did no such thing.  But he sure talked a good game.  That's all Republicans want: someone who will say the things they want to hear, like Reagan and George W. Bush did.

Republicans Debate Each Other

I'm glad Ron Paul has decided to run for president again. His presence will bring issues to the forefront that never would have otherwise. It's possible he could actually mellow out the GOP somewhat. I'm not going to hold my breath on that, though.

Just imagine if a Democratic candidate supported legalizing drugs and prostitution, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bringing our troops home, stopping foreign aid to Israel, and believed the president has limited powers the reaction they would get from the MSM. Those are all very Democratic stances and have been for years and have been supported numerous times by elected Democrats . But when Ron Paul says it he somehow gets the libertarian label even though he isn't one. He's a Republican.  When a Democrat says them they are liberal socialist commies.

Now I don't always agree with Ron Paul.  He's too much of a conspiracy theorist for me.  I also absolutely reject his contention that Medicare, Social Security, the Civil Rights Bill and many other important pieces of legislation are unconstitutional.  He's completely crazy when it comes to that stuff and is only against them because it ends elitist control.  But what I disagree with the most is his libertarian label.  He's a Republican but gets to pretend he's a freedom fighter by espousing liberal ideas.

Comments

The Disqus commenting system seems to be screwing up again.

Credit Reagan

In all honesty, if Reagan hadn't armed, funded and supplied intelligence to bin Laden during his jihad, we would not have had an enemy to kill. Therefore, Reagan pretty much deserves all the credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden.

I'm just going to leave that hanging out there for anyone to use.

Give Them All Credit

I don't know how true or reliable the source is in this NY Daily News article. The article says President Bush turned down President Obama's invite to Ground Zero today because he's a little ticked that he hasn't gotten enough credit for helping kill bin Laden.  I'm skeptical of this because I do believe President Bush is much more professional and honorable than that.

I'm not against giving Bush some credit.  He obviously forced the intel community to work closer and setup a cabinet level intelligence chief to help oversee FBI, CIA, military, and Secret Service intel.  That was a smart move and no doubt helped him and the current president decipher intelligence reports.  For him to deserve anymore credit than that, though, is far-fetched. 

After all, Bush is the one who sent 9,000 troops into Afghanistan and 130,000 into a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.  He is responsible for turning our attention away from bin Laden and taking vital resources out of the fight with al Qaeda and sending them to Iraq. 

In 2001, just two months after the attacks, Bush allowed bin Laden to slip away at Tora Bora.  In 2002 Bush said he wasn't concerned with bin Laden and didn't spend that much time worrying about him.  In 2003 he invaded Iraq and set in motion an ongoing 8 year war that left Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden on the back burner.  It can't be stressed enough how costly the invasion of Iraq was in regards to delaying the killing of bin Laden.  In 2005 Bush dismantled the CIA team setup to find bin Laden.  Additionally, the CIA now believes bin Laden had been living in the mansion he was killed at on Sunday for at least 5 years-- coincidentally after Bush had disbanded the CIA team tasked with finding him and while we were bogged down in Iraq.

It was only after Obama took office and ordered the CIA to make finding bin Laden their number one task.  And after Obama oversaw the ending of our combat mission in Iraq and redeployed troops ordered to Iraq to Afghanistan instead did we kill bin Laden.  As a candidate Barack Obama said he would refocus America's attention back to the person who was actually responsible for the September 11th attacks, and he did just that.

If we have to give Bush any more credit than setting up an intelligence apparatus that proved vital no doubt, then we might as well give Clinton credit for being the president to actually start the targeting of bin Laden in the first place.  And then while we're at it, let's give Reagan credit for arming, funding and training bin Laden in the first place because if he hadn't done that we wouldn't have had an enemy to kill.

Palin Uses Twatter Page for Pussy Footing

Former half-term Governor of Alaska writes on her twatter page President Obama should quit "pussy-footing" around and go ahead and release the pics of a dead bin Laden.  Wheee!

Courier's Name Did Not Come From Waterboarding

The torture enthusiasts, which are pretty much the last remnants of George Bush supporters, really believe Bush's state-sanctioned torture program led to the killing of bin Laden.

There are a few important items to consider when talking with these people.  Along with believing torture should be standard practice for a Constitutional Republic, they also believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11, that Bush was a popular president, that any criticism of Bush could not be tolerated and equaled treason and that the deficit only became a problem in 2009.  They are not the sanest people you are ever going to come across.

On top of all that, though.  Whether or not torture can produce good intelligence, which there's no doubt it can, is that the most important piece of information-- the name of bin Laden's courier-- that eventually led to his killing by U.S. Navy Seals on May 1st, is that it came from an al Qeada operative that had not been waterboarded and was described by CIA agents as being "quite cooperative."

In 2004, however, a Qaeda operative named Hassan Ghul, captured in Iraq, gave a different account of Mr. Kuwaiti, according to the American official. Mr. Ghul told interrogators that Mr. Kuwaiti was a trusted courier who was close to Bin Laden, as well as to Mr. Mohammed and to Abu Faraj al-Libi, who had become the operational chief of Al Qaeda after Mr. Mohammed’s capture.

Mr. Kuwaiti, Mr. Ghul added, had not been seen in some time — which analysts thought was a possible indication that the courier was hiding out with Bin Laden.

The details of Mr. Ghul’s treatment are unclear, though the C.I.A. says he was not waterboarded. The C.I.A. asked the Justice Department to authorize other harsh methods for use on him, but it is unclear which were used. One official recalled that Mr. Ghul was “quite cooperative,” saying that rough treatment, if any, would have been brief.

Again, though, the debate wrongly seems to center on whether or not torture produces results. Sure it does. I don't know anyone who has ever denied that torturing someone doesn't produce intelligence. It can produce a lot of things, some good some bad.  The question, however, is not whether torture works but whether torture should be a policy of the American government.  I for one don't believe it should.  Not only is it illegal and morally wrong but it's also as counterproductive as it is useful.

The take from this isn't whether or not people were tortured that led to intelligence in the hunt for bin Laden.  People were tortured, we know that.  But the most important piece of information, that being the name of the courier, came from someone who was not subjected to Bush's enhanced interrogation technique of waterboarding or what the Navy Seals themselves refer to as torture.

Deep Thought

For all the mocking of the 3AM phone call during and after the 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama sure answered that call better than even I expected.

The Pics

CIA director Leon Panetta says the public will eventually see the photos of a dead Osama bin Laden, but that they need a little more time to fake them first.  Got to work out that whole Photoshop layers thing first.

Can't Wait for 2012

Just some of the things Republicans are saying about President Obama and the killing of bin Laden.

Washington Times: Allowing bin Laden Islamic last rites proves President Obama adheres to Sharia.

Fox News employee, Pam Geller: President Obama didn't want to kill bin Laden but was overridden by a military coup. Yes I'm not making this up.

It Worked and They Laughed

There's a lot of information out there about the death of bin Laden. Things seem to be changing rapidly. Not only about the events of the raid but also of the events leading up to May 1. So it's important to keep noting just how wrong it was for the United States to turn its attention away from killing bin Laden in the first place.

There's no doubt in my mind the death of bin Laden could have happened years ago had we not invaded Iraq. Doing so swept vital resources away from a just war in Afghanistan where the hunt for the person responsible for 9/11 had barely begun.  For no reason at all, the  Bush administration wanted to invade from the beginning.  This fixation on Iraq led America down a course of irresponsibility, lies, and a full scale war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with September 11th.  Republicans chose Iraq over killing bin Laden.

After half a decade of war in Iraq, thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of billions of dollars, what did Republicans do in 2008 when a freshman U.S. Senator from Illinois said he would go after the person responsible for 9/11 no matter where he was hiding?  They laughed.

By the time Obama had taken office in 2009, George Bush had dismantled the CIA bin Laden unit four years prior.  Emphatically, by 2009 the effort to find bin Laden was negligent and had taken a back seat to a war of choice led by madmen whose power thrived from keeping America in a state of panic and fear.

These are important facts to note when we talk today about how the Obama administration was able to track down and kill Osama bin Laden.  There was an intelligence apparatus in place, no doubt about it.  And I don't want that to sound inconsequential.  But the administration that revamped the back-burner war in Afghanistan, personally ordered the CIA to find bin Laden, increased the amount of drone missions in two years than the previous 9 combined, and directed America's military focus back to the person responsible for 9/11 was the administration of Barack Obama.  And it worked.

Republicans Hope to Reinvent Torture History

Because they are whiny babies that have to prove how tough and macho they are, Republicans have been going all over the airwaves trying to give President Bush credit for the killing of Bin Laden. It's preposterous for them to think a liberal tree hugging socialist like Obama could out do them. So they've invented this talking point that Bush's state-sanctioned torture program led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. This is, amongst other things, absurd.

I'm going to be loosely posting some of the push back against such Republican delusion as I come across it. It's important to remind people Bin Laden could have been killed years ago had George Bush not turned our attention away from him and Afghanistan and toward a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Now that a new president has accomplished exactly what he said he would do, revisionist history trying to falsely credit the people who gave us nothing but endless war and huge budget deficits must be shot down.  I'll post links below so people can come and grab them to counter the totally baseless GOP media apparatus.


White House deputy national security advisor John Brennan flatly denies Bush's torture program played any role.

Senate Intelligence Committee chair says info didn't come from torture

Associated Press specifically states Bush's state-sanctioned torture policy did not give the name of the courier.

I'll post more whenever I find them.  You can do the same in comments to make sure the list continues.

*Update:

Another of the AP report this time on ABC News.

Bush and McCain Said They Wouldn't Pursue Bin Laden in Pakistan

Since neither Bush nor McCain caught or killed Osama bin Laden, all we can go by is their rhetoric. And both said they WOULD NOT pursue Bin Laden into Pakistan even if we had intelligence telling us he was there.

Here's Bush in 2006:

BUSH: We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question. They were asking me about somebody's report, well, Special Forces here — Pakistan — if he is in Pakistan, as this person thought he might be, who is asking the question — Pakistan is a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.

Here's McCain in 2008 while running to replace President Bush:

Larry King: "If you were president and knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan, you know where, would you have U.S. forces go in after him?"

McCain: "Larry, I'm not going to go there and here's why: because Pakistan is a sovereign nation."

As you'll recall, Obama's campaign comments in 2008 that he would go into Pakistan to capture or kill the person responsible for 9/11 was thought of as completely crazy by Republicans.  Just to refresh, here's what Republicans thought about a plan that would pursue Bin Laden in Pakistan.  Hannity called it "frightening."  Rove chalked it up to Obama's inexperience.  Limbaugh even said it would royally screw Musharraf who he believed was a great ally despite the fact he had been hiding Bin Laden in his country.  O'Reilly said Obama's comments were not worthy.

In their world, Iraq was the war they wanted.  Afghanistan and pursuing the people responsible for 9/11 was a distraction.  A presidential policy that focused on tracking down Bin Laden no matter where he might be was laughable to Republicans.  Of course they aren't laughing now.  They are wanting credit for it.

1900th Post!

How to Lower Gas Prices

I think Stephen Stromberg has it right about gas prices. The Republican line of Drill Here, Drill Now will do nothing to alleviate gas prices. Domestic supply is too small to contribute much to the world oil market. The Democratic line of only wanting to attack Republicans without actually admitting more drilling is necessary-- even in Alaska, completely flushes the whole conversation down the toilet.

Yes I think we should drill more (we also should get rid of stupid oil company subsidies). You may disagree and that's fine. But the only way to bring prices down for good is to consume less oil.  The way to consume less oil is to operate things that consume less oil like your legs.  Or to produce more efficient planes, trains and automobiles.  I don't see Americans really giving up their cars.  So solution two is the direction we should be heading and we should have a federal policy in place to cure our addiction to consuming so much oil.  The whole political nonsense both parties are using to their advantage gets us no where.

Southern Illinois Flooding

Image via Wikipedia

Many readers might not know where I live in Southern Illinois is experiencing the worst flooding since 1937. Countless roads and towns are almost entirely under water. Harrisburg has even closed its flood gate, which has never happened before that I know of.  Being that the southern region is part of the Mississippi Delta-- which I'm sure most people don't realize just how far south Illinois stretches-- flooding is always an issue.  Like Tennessee's epic floods last year, deep south Illinois is just barely making the news.

Today, however, CNN did mention the Army Corp decided to blow the levee at Cairo.  This is to help alleviate the flooding which will soon amass the town but will result in flooding hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland in Missouri.

What we have, and this gets overlooked so much, are the two largest rivers in North America coming together right at the southern tip of Illinois, in Cairo.  When both the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers flood, that spells doom for Egypt (nee: Southern Illinois).  Though right now the rain has stopped the next few days will be critical for the region.  Luckily my home is on a hill and my town is 30 miles northeast of Cairo.  The numerous contributories, creeks and other small rivers, are backed up because of The Ohio and are flooding throughout, however.  There's just no place for the water to go.  Not to give a boring geography lesson, but things here are edgy.

Here are some pics:

confluence of Mississippi and Ohio taken before 10 extra inches of rain fell

All pictures are courtesy of the Chicago Tribune

It Was a Good Day

Couple quick items. First, I can't remember the last time I have watched the news this much. I do know it's been a very long time. It's weird feeling excitement watching CNN, ABC, and NBC.

Secondly, I have been busy working on a presentation since Saturday that I'm supposed to deliver at a conference in Chicago mainly dealing with the 2010 elections and what to expect next year. As you can guess, I was thrown a curve last night with the jubilant announcement of the killing of bin Laden. Needless to say, I spent the better part of today updating the presentation to include the most important historical event to happen since 9/11. Because of that you'll have to forgive me for ignoring the blog today. I promise I'll get back to work with some posting tomorrow.

Also, I want to give a big thank you to the American military.

DEAD