TRUTH IRAQ WAR DOCUMENTARY

Share |

TRUTH IRAQ WAR DOCUMENTARY
Video sent by NEW_FRONTIER

where are the weapons? Sure Saddam is a S.O.B. who committed genocide and mass murders but the WMD are the reason told to Congress and the American people for going to War. Connection with 9/11? Still no proof. And Rumsfeld never had a cohesive plan. WE FELT TOO EASILY AND AFTER 3 YEARS WE ARE REMAINDED OF THAT. The media did not question anything because they saw Bush as the dumb guy who did not know any better.

Bush Kept America Safe: A Fantasy

Share |

George W. Bush claims that his torture policies have kept America safe for seven years and that information obtained via these violations of the Geneva Convention have assertained specific information that have prevented subsequent terrorist attacks (plural) from taking place. Yet we have not heard word one as to the time, place, manor, and person or persons involved in these thwarted attacks, and what judicial measure of justice has been served upon the would-be terrorist?

Much like the so-called terrorist sleeper cell cases of Detroit, Portland, Lackawana, etal, there seems to be an eliment of fantasy in many of claims that Bush and Cheney make in justifying their torture programs. Cheney recently stated in an interview with CBS that he was convinced, absolutely convinced that these policies have saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. Try as I may, I cannot accept such a claim at face value and particularly due it's source.

If the Septmember 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center claimed 3,500 lives, what kind of attack could Dick Cheney possibly believe his torture policy was directly responsible for interrupting that saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The fact that he says "I'm convinced" that we saved hundreds of thousands of lives makes it quite clear that this claim is nothing more then an assumption, if not wishful thinking and that it has no basis in fact. Therefore, if he is only convinced and not certain that hundreds of thousands of lives were spared, then whatever information that was obtained via the waterboard would also be assumptive and speculative at best.

If you step back and look at the big picture surrounding this issue, I submit that it was actually President Clinton who is responsible for keeping America safe for seven years following the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. As disconnected as the FBI, DOJ, CIA, and State Departments were during that time, Ramsi Youseff and a whole list of other individuals responsible were caught and brought to justice rather swiftly. Not only do I disagree that George Bush kept America safe as he cliams, I believe that Bush ignored vital information that was passed on to him by the Clinton Administration during the transition in regards to Osama Bin Ladin.

We all know that Bush gave no creedence to the "Osama Bin Ladin Determined To Strike Inside of The United States." memo and the famous "Okay, you've covered your ass." line when he was briefed yet again in person regarding OBL.

Way back in 1993, many may have wondered whether the World Trade Center bombing itself is not a harbinger of the train wreck coming. Well...we now have that answer and no matter how you want to disect it, it happened on Bush 43's watch, and his lack of attention and concern over Osama Bin Ladin was a key factor.

Chico Brisbane

Picketers Against Upholding Of Prop 8

Share |

About 18,000 married same-sex couples took a collective sigh of relief Tuesday. Then they promptly grabbed their picket signs, took to the streets and took a collective stand against the Supreme Court ruling to uphold Proposition 8. The court ruled Tuesday the proposition was a valid one, making gay marriage illegal in California. But the ruling also upheld the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place prior to the ban.

For John Lewallen, the decision wasn't a bittersweet mix of victory and defeat. He was relieved that his August marriage to longtime partner, Robert Lewis, was legal. But the validation of Proposition 8 still angers him. Most of the committed gay and lesbian couples he knows got married last year while gay marriage was legal, Lewallen said. He called the decision a "no-brainer."

"They really feared this was a window of opportunity and they got married," he said.
He said he empathizes for friends who will not have the opportunity to marry the partner of their choosing.

"I am really just as depressed as if they overturned the marriages too," the Glendora resident said. "It is a sad, sad day for all of California."

The fight will continue and while that can be uplifting, Lewallen said it is also unbelievable it has gone on this long.

"It really does equate to the battle for interracial marriage, people deciding what kind of life other people can have," Lewallen said. "It is so basic I don't know why people don't get it. I don't believe what their beliefs are, but I would defend their right to believe that."
Lewallen planned to attend a demonstration against the decision in Claremont on Tuesday night.

For Julie Tinney, who married her partner in October, Tuesday's decision solidified a victory for discrimination. "How can you have 18,000 couples that are allowed to marry and others that are not allowed to (marry)?" asked Tinney, an Alhambra resident. "I think the worst part of it is that it sends the message that the majority was right. That we are second-class citizens."

But the couple plans to continue to fight, even though they believe it has already been too costly. "Obviously we didn't make a good enough argument to the Supreme Court," said Tinney. "We will get it validated, it is just going to take a little time ... and a lot of money. You shouldn't have to spend money just to get equal rights."

Rush Limbaugh's Anal Fixation Out Of Control

Share |

Rush Limbaugh not only has a fondness for talking out of his ass, he also has an insatiable appetite for anal refrences. Rush cannot stop from using terms like “bend over” - “grab your ankles.” - “Butt-Boy” – and “Being Probed” The pill popping oxy-cotin addict has had this anal fixation for years. Below are some examples of some of Rush’s greatest anal orations.
Most notoriously, the talk radio king complained in January:

"We are being told that we have to hope [Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president."

Limbaugh's tuchis talk is so constant, it doesn't seem to be just the joking around of a clown. (Is it mere coincidence that he got out of serving in Vietnam because of an anal cyst?) When he talks so vividly about being, well, taken by the president, there has to be a little psychosexual stuff going on. Anal rape jokes, in particular, are a running theme for Limbaugh. In fact, they're one of his favorite ways of describing acquiescence or obedience. Note the recurring racial theme.

When gay activists called for a boycott of Colorado in the early 1990s, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb came to New York to seek the support of his fellow African-American city chief, Mayor David Dinkins. Limbaugh saw Dinkins being pulled in two directions: "And the question is should he bend over forward and grab the ankles for this narrow special interest group or should he remain in solidarity with his black bro?"

In the run-up to New Jersey's 1993 gubernatorial election, Limbaugh said that the only people who'd vote for Democrat Jim Florio were those willing to "bend over, grab their ankles" and accept new taxes.

The Clinton administration's proposal for healthcare reform was a command, as Limbaugh wrote, to "Bend over, America." When Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman sought to court African-American votes by apologizing for his party's past, Limbaugh grumbled, "Republicans are going to go bend over and grab the ankles."

Three years later, he accused Democrats of being submissive to black and gay voters. "Democrats will bend over, grab the ankles, and say, 'Have your way with me,' for 10 percent and 2 percent of the population?"

When Sarah Palin refused to cooperate with investigations of Troopergate, Rush glowed approvingly: "She didn't bend over and let them have their way."

And those who do willingly submit get nothing but contempt from Limbaugh. A favored term of abuse for these is "butt boy."

CNN's Ed Henry is Obama's "butt boy," but ABC's Jake Tapper, to his credit, is not.
NBC's Andrea Mitchell, somewhat confusingly, is the "butt boy" to Rep. Barney Frank.
Of course, bending over has its risks. As we saw last week with his reference to Obama sycophants, Limbaugh has a very specific formulation for what you can catch from too much of it.

Democratic honcho Terry McAuliffe, Limbaugh warned, "will die of anal poisoning because he is so close to drilling Hillary [Clinton]."

Key John McCain ally Sen. Lindsey Graham "is certainly close enough to [McCain] to die of anal poisoning."

And if British Prime Minister Gordon Brown continues "slobbering" over Obama, he'll "come down with anal poisoning and die from it."

That's probably why Limbaugh is so wary of bending over himself. He's told us so many times:
"I have a very sensitive rear end because I am a sensitive guy."
"I never bend over forward in public, especially in these times."
"I dropped something, is what the confusion is here and I -- in -- in New York City I never bend over forward. And -- so -- in public. So I needed somebody to come pick it up for me."
"I seldom bend over forward in public, for obvious reasons."


When Adm. Bobby Ray Inman didn't want to take an administration job, Limbaugh sympathized. "He -- he decided not to undergo the congressional and media rectal exam that being nominated for a Cabinet post -- that's what this is, folks. Somebody's got something somewhere that he just doesn't want probed."
The 1996 Republican nominee was bound to get "the biggest ... rectal exam."

Supreme Court Choice: Push To Confirm Sotomayor

Share |

Supreme Court Choice: Push To Confirm Sotomayor

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday he doesn't foresee a filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, even though GOP lawmakers want to closely scrutinize her legal philosophy.

The GOP faces an uphill battle in defeating the New York-born daughter of Puerto Rican parents, but Republicans are promising a thorough and perhaps lengthy hearing process that delves into her record and judicial philosophy.
Democrats hold 59 votes in the Senate, more than enough to confirm Sotomayor but not quite enough to stop a vote-blocking filibuster if Republicans should attempt one

Read Full Story Here

Congressional Ballot: Democrats Ahead Of GOP

Share |

Congressional Ballot: Democrats Ahead Of GOP

Democratic Congressional candidates have moved further ahead of Republicans this week in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% would vote for their district's Democratic congressional candidate while 38% would choose the Republican.
Read Full Story Here

Facebook Block Removed In Iran

Share |

Iran - Access to the social networking website Facebook is back in Iran after being blocked late last week.

Read Full Story Here

Clinton Ask Russia For Unified Response To N. Korea

Share |

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Tuesday called her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to ask for a "unified" response from the world community to North Korea's nuclear tests, spokesman Ian Kelly said. In the call, Clinton "reiterated the importance of a quick, unified response to North Korea's provocative action," Kelly told reporters.

Read Full Story Here

Roland Burris - Bolgo's Brother Wiretaps Released

Share |

CHICAGO — The U.S. Senate Ethics Committee will be allowed to listen to a federal wiretap of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother having a phone conversation with U.S. Sen. Roland Burris, who has been under scrutiny over the circumstances of his appointment, a federal judge said Tuesday. The conversation between Burris and the former governor's brother occurred while Blagojevich was still governor and before he named Burris to President Barack Obama's former U.S. Senate seat.

Burris has been under intense scrutiny because of the circumstances of his appointment by the disgraced former governor and for changing his story multiple times about whether he promised anything in exchange for the appointment. The Senate Ethics Committee has begun a preliminary investigation. The Sangamon County State's Attorney is determining whether perjury charges are warranted.

U.S. District Chief Judge James F. Holderman on Tuesday unsealed a government motion requesting permission to release to the ethics committee wiretap material gathered in the Blagojevich investigation. The material consists of a conversation between Burris and the impeached governor's brother, businessman Robert Blagojevich, who headed the Friends of Rod Blagojevich campaign fund. Rod Blagojevich is charged with scheming to trade or sell the seat and using the political muscle of his office to squeeze people for campaign money. Robert Blagojevich is under indictment along with his brother and a number of other members of the ousted governor's inner circle. Both brothers deny wrongdoing.

Holderman told attorneys for Robert Blagojevich, Burris and the government that "the material will be released to the Senate shortly."

Robert Blagojevich attorney Michael Ettinger and Burris attorney Timothy Wright did not object to the government's motion. "I think that the senator has told the truth every time," Wright said. He acknowledged that his client had told the impeachment committee that he didn't volunteer to raise money for Blagojevich in exchange for the seat.

"And we think he has been perfectly consistent," Wright said.

Burris spokesman Jim O'Connor said the senator would cooperate and "welcomes this as a chance for more transparency and the opportunity for the full truth to come out."
The Sangamon County state's attorney's office said it had no comment on the status of its review of possible perjury charges against Burris.

Burris testified before the House Committee that impeached Blagojevich in January that he didn't promise anything in exchange for the Senate seat. Blagojevich appointed Burris just before being kicked out of office. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., agreed to seat Burris if he gave a full accounting of his Blagojevich contacts to the Illinois House committee that was considering impeachment of the governor.
Burris gave the committee an affidavit denying any discussion with Blagojevich's aides before being offered the seat. But when he testified, Burris acknowledged talking to one of Blagojevich's friends and informal advisers about it.

Burris did not admit talking to anyone else and said he could not recall any other contacts.
Then, after he was sworn in, Burris released another affidavit acknowledging he had talked to several Blagojevich advisers about his interest in the seat. Soon after, talking to reporters, he said he had been asked to help raise campaign money for the governor and that he tried to find people willing to donate but failed. Then he stopped answering questions, letting others speak on his behalf. Durbin said it would be unfair to speculate about what's in the recorded conversation between Burris and Robert Blagojevich.

"Let's wait until the transcript is released, the tape is released. If there's a problem, let Sen. Burris address it," Durbin said at an unrelated news conference in Chicago.

Secret Recordings Between Burris And Blagojevich's Brother To Be Released

Share |

It was good to see an editorial in the New York Times this morning blasting KBR for trying to give its people bonuses, in light of the recent revelations about its shoddy electrical work in Iraq.
Namely, it was found that 90% of its work there was faulty.

I have followed this issue closely since January 2008, when a Green Beret, Ryan Maseth -- the son of Cheryl Harris, now my friend -- was electrocuted. I've written about it often here. You may recall: The military claimed at first that he had carried a hair dryer into a shower, all his fault. Turns out: It was a lie. Cheryl kept fighting and her efforts led to probes by the press, the Pentagon and Congress.

She has sued KBR. Many other cases of soldier electrocutions have since come to light. KBR whistleblowers have surfaced. And let's not forget the Cheney connection.
Here's an excerpt from the Times' editorial. In a final graf, not included here, it refers to the Ryan Maseth case.

Read More Here: For Memorial Day: How KBR Killed U.S. Soldiers

Former Senior Interrogator Dissects Cheney's Lies

Share |

As a senior interrogator in Iraq (and a former criminal investigator), there was a lesson I learned that served me well: there's more to be learned from what someone doesn't say than from what they do say. Let me dissect former Vice President Dick Cheney's speech on National Security using this model and my interrogation skills.

First, VP Cheney said, "This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately... it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do." He further stated, "It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so." That is simply untrue. Anyone who served in Iraq, and veterans on both sides of the aisle have made this argument, knows that the foreign fighters did not come to Iraq en masse until after the revelations of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I heard this from captured foreign fighters day in and day out when I was supervising interrogations in Iraq. What the former vice president didn't say is the fact that the dislike of our policies in the Middle East were not enough to make thousands of Muslim men pick up arms against us before these revelations. Torture and abuse became Al Qaida's number one recruiting tool and cost us American lives.

Read More Here: Huffington Post

Former Senior Interrogator in Iraq Dissects Cheney's Lies and Distortions

Army Suicide On The Rise

Share |

Army Suicides on the Rise

The rate of suicide in the Army has exceeded that of the general population for the first time since the Vietnam War, officials say. The number of cases reported in 2008 rose to 140 from 115 in 2007, and as many as 57 cases were recorded during the first three months of this year alone. January was an all-time monthly high, with a total of 24 suspected suicides.

Reverend Susan Turley’s son, Army Pfc. Keith Moore, shot himself while manning a desolate checkpoint south of Baghdad on Oct. 14, 2006. The day he died, Keith had quarreled with an officer because he didn't see the point of patting down the same Iraqi civilians who came through their isolated checkpoint each day.

According to Turley, members of her son’s unit told her that his last words were, “I don't know why we're doing this anyway. They're not bombing us.” She is now working on a documentary about mothers who have lost children in the war.

Read it at Mercury News:
Posted at 9:26 AM, May 25, 2009

Michael Steel: Gay Marriage Bad For Small Business

Share |

Jon Stewart talking about RNC Chairman Michael Steel and his comments about the negative effect that gay marriage would have on small business.

WATCH VIDEO:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Gay Marriage Is Bad for Small Business
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Dick Cheney Terrified Of Prosecution

Share |

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is suffering from an adrenaline dump now that he has a view of his torture program from the side line. No longer the puppet master, he is seeing not only the totality of what he and George Bush have done over the passed 8 years, but all of the deception to the American people and the congress they felt was necessary to make it happen.

"I’m convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps

hundreds of thousands, of lives," Cheney said recently on CBS.

If a horrific terrorist attack such as 9/11 claimed 3,500 lives. What kind of attack could Cheney possibly be convinced, absolutely convinced was thwarted by his actions and saved hundreds of thousands of lives? The only event where numbers of that magnitude come into play are the number of lives lost in the very war of choice that he and George Bush waged against Afghanistan and Iraq. His frightening realization was only made worse by President Obama releasing the internal memos from the Office of Legal Council that are at best, a pathetic attempt at justifying torture.

You simply cannot make legal what is illegal with a bunch of lawyers in a basement office over at the Department of Justice. That would require an act of congress and both Cheney and Bush knew that they would get no such thing from this congress. With the writing on the wall, Cheney embarked on a media junket, not out of love for his country or the honest belief that his actions were justified, but to save his own ass. This is Dick Cheney we're talking about-- can you imagine the level of desperation this man must be at to enlist the help of his wife and daughter to help fight his battle?

Many in the media have asked this very question. Why is Cheney -- someone who had avoided the media for most of his eight years as vice president -- suddenly looking for an audience no matter what the subject. He's said that the anti-terror policies of the Bush administration were "exactly the right thing to do" and that "there isn’t anybody there on the other side to tell the truth." -- He also says that we are thretened and more unsafe due to Obama abandoning many of these inhanced interrogation tactics. So which it it? -- Does Cheney believe that he could possibly convince Obama to adopt his torture program verbatum? - Does anyone belive that Cheney really cares about the safety of the American people or any person for that matter who is not related to him by blood? -- All Cheney cares about is reducing public support for a criminal inquiry into the torture regime that he authorized. PERIOD! -- He is pinning his hopes on being able to fool a simple majority of Americans one last time so that he can, once and for all, retreat to his beloved undisclosed location.

Last night on CNN, however, Cheney’s daughter Liz revealed that fear of prosecution is indeed a motivating factor in the former vice president’s current media campaign:
L. CHENEY: I don’t think he planned to be doing this, you know, when they left office in January. But I think, as it became clear that President Obama was not only going to be stopping some of these policies, that he was going to be doing things like releasing the — the techniques themselves, so that the terrorists could now train to them, that he was suggesting that perhaps we would even be prosecuting former members of the Bush administration.

Watch it:


Does Liz Cheney also fear that her dad will be prosecuted for his role in the Bush administration’s torture program? Perhaps so. As Steve Benen has noted, "Liz Cheney has been all over the television news" as well, with "12 appearances, in nine and a half days, spanning four networks."

Driver Kills Motorcyclist While Painting Her Finger Nails

Share |

Below is an open letter from an individual named Bruce Arnold, to an Illinois resident that killed a young wife and mother while attempting to drive and paint her fingernails at the same time. It’s a sad account of just how careless people can be while behind the wheel. If there has ever been a time when "Driving While Distracted" laws need to be created, it's now.

OPEN LETTER TO LORA L. HUNT, RECKLESS KILLER OF ANITA ZAFFKE


22 May 2009

Lora L. Hunt
XXXX Peart Road
Morris, IL 60450-9514
Tel/Fax: 815-942-XXXX

Dear Ms. Hunt,

On the afternoon of 2 May 2009--the second day of "Motorcycle Awareness Month"--you made the deliberate decision to engage in the personal vanity of painting your fingernails rather than paying attention to your driving. In so doing, you knew or should have known that (just as if you were texting or talking on a cell phone) this deplorable discretionary distraction would transform the possibility of you being in an accident into a probability of causing one. In so doing, you exhibited a culpable disregard of the foreseeable consequences of your actions, and recklessly endangered the lives of all motorists who shared the road with you that day. And in so doing, you wantonly took the life of a helmeted, conspicuously clad, experienced and responsible motorcyclist, a loving wife and mother named Anita Zaffke:

It's too bad Anita Zaffke didn't take the interstate that day. If she had, at least there'd be much less chance you could have plowed full speed into the rear of her Honda as she waited for a light to change. Instead she was on an undivided road, where according to NHTSA (DOT HS 810 606 Table 20), 90% of all motorcycle accidents occur. And why is that? Because those are the roads where motorists guilty of inattentional blindness resulting from discretionary distractions are most likely to commit a right-of-way violation ... like pulling out or turning left in front of us as they chat on their cell phones ... or weaving into our lane and hitting us head on as they tap out their text messages ... or ramming us at a red light while they paint their fingernails.

That doesn't change the facts, however, that Anita Zaffke had every right to be where she was, and that you had no right to hit her stopped motorcycle so hard that you knocked her two hundred feet through the air, causing her to suffer for more than an hour before succumbing to the mortal wounds inflicted by your total disregard for the lives of others.

You are responsible for taking a human life, Lora Hunt, because you made a conscious decision to engage in a distraction that you knew impaired your ability to drive. Yes, you were just as impaired as if you'd been driving under the influence of alcohol, if not more so. And had this been a DUI manslaughter, you'd probably be charged with a Class 2 Felony and sentenced to a jail term of 3 to 14 years. But "DWI" has yet to be redefined as "driving while impaired", in Illinois or elsewhere, so the charge you're more likely to face is reckless homicide, a Class 3 Felony punishable by only 2 to 5 years imprisonment. And even THAT charge has not been filed against you by the State's Attorneys ... yet.

Your untested but politically connected young lawyer, Ms. Ragan R. Freitag, only graduated from Mississippi College School of Law last year and passed her Illinois bar exam last October. But she has been quick to remind the masses through the media that "distracted driving is not illegal". That is true. And it is a sad commentary on the hypocrisy of our society that willfully endangering others by driving while impaired due to alcohol or drugs is a crime, but driving while being equally impaired by discretionary distractions is not. We will not allow Ms. Freitag's naive attempt at redirection, however, to obfuscate the real issue here. For even the staunchest Libertarians will agree that your freedom to swing a fist ends where someone else's right not to be hit begins. You crossed that line, Lora Hunt, when you took the life of Anita Zaffke. And no amount of remorse, staged or sincere, can undo the damage you have done.

For consciously deciding to engage in a discretionary distraction that led directly to the death of a responsible motorcyclist, you must be held accountable. That process begins, Lora Hunt, when you are scheduled to appear in Lake County Court at 9 a.m. Monday, June 8, to deal with your ticket for "failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident":

Lake County Courthouse and Administration Building
18 North County Street
Waukegan, Illinois 60085-4359
http://www.19thcircuitcourt.state.il.us/info/info_n18.htm

RAIN OR SHINE, I HOPE THAT EVERY BIKER IN ILLINOIS RIDES TO MEET YOU THERE. I also hope that every rider reading this will join me in demanding that justice be done for Anita Zaffke, for her family, and for all American motorcyclists. And in closing, I hope that as a member of the First Christian Church of Morris IL, Lora Hunt, you realize how fortunate you are that the State of Illinois is not likely to apply the penalty for your crime prescribed in Leviticus 24(19-21):

"If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death."

I, for one, wish they would. Then maybe, over time, more would change in these reports than just the names:

Speaking strictly for myself and no other individuals or organizations,

Bruce Arnold

Rush Limbaugh Fed Up With Keith Olbermann

Share |

The Oxy-Cotin addicted, Viagra smuggling Rush “Lumpy” Limbaugh has reached his limit with MSNBC and it’s top rated personality, Keith Olbermann. Last night Lumpy challenged Mr. Olbermann and MSNBC to go 30 days without mentioning or showing any video of him.

The morbidly obese radio talk show host claimed That Olbermann and MSNBC where using him to boost their own ratings. The claim was laughable on it’s face and additionally, Limbaugh is in no position to challenge anyone to a test of will power. Particularly for a man who eats Oxy-Cotin from a Ronald Regan shaped Pez Dispenser like it was fucking candy.

Limbaugh’s radio show, which is said to originate from a 50-Watt AM radio signal transmitting from the roof top of a White Castle drive-thru in Anoka, Minnesota, is hardly a venue in danger of being used for it’s abundance of ratings. In spite of the hysterical implications of Lumpy Limbaugh’s claim, Mr. Olbermann managed to remain seated in his chair throughout the segment on last night’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann. I on the other hand, was on my living room floor, laughing my fucking ass off. I think that I will just leave it at that before I say anything rude or offensive.

Chico Brisbane

A Hero's Welcome In Kosovo For Vice President Biden

Share |

Kosovo children cheer as US VP Joe Biden arrived in Kosovo's capital Pristina, 21 May 2009

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. received a hero's welcome Thursday as one of the highest-level officials yet to visit Kosovo since its disputed declaration of independence from Serbia last year.

"Kosovo's independence was the only viable option for stability in the region," Biden told a special sitting of the Kosovo parliament in Pristina. Cheered on by a huge crowd, Vice President Biden's motorcade had made its way towards the parliament along streets lined by billboards declaring: "Welcome and thank you."


"Your independence is irreversible," he said in a speech that received several standing ovations from the ethnic Albanian dominated assembly
"The success of an independent Kosovo is a priority for our administration and our country."


The US vice president is considered one of Washington's strongest advocates of the independence of ethnic Albanian-majority Kosovo, which declared its secession from Serbia in February last year. Coming after trips to Bosnia and Serbia, Biden's visit to Kosovo is his final stop on a tour to demonstrate fresh US engagement in Europe and the volatile Balkan region. Earlier, after meeting with President Fatmir Sejdui, Prime Minister Hashim Thaci and other leaders, Biden said Kosovo awarded him with "The Golden Medal of Freedom," the highest decoration in the Balkan territory.

"Thank you... for honouring me with this medal... I don't deserve it, but I received it on behalf of the United States," Biden told reporters. Local media hailed the visit of Biden, one of the strongest supporters of Kosovo's independence when he served as a senator in the late 1990s.

"Mr. Biden is one of the few politicians in the world that has long believed in the independence of Kosovo. For his contribution to changing our destiny, Biden is our man," the Express daily said Thursday in a commentary. Kosovo's decision to split from Serbia on February 17, 2008 is strongly opposed by Belgrade and Serbs, who number little more than 100,000 in the disputed territory of two million inhabitants. During the Clinton Administration, US warplanes took part in NATO's 1999 bombing of Serbia to end a violent crackdown on separatist Kosovo Albanian rebels by forces loyal to late president Slobodan Milosevic.

Final Hours To California Supreme Court Ruling On Prop 8

Share |

In this file photo from Dec. 19, 2008, Ryan Kerian listens to a group

In the final hours that the California Supreme Court has left to rule whether or not to uphold Prop 8, those on either side of the issue anxiously await the verdict. The homophobic driven ballot measure has been a hot button here in my home state.

What mystifies me is that Prop 8 is not really a gay / straight issue, but rather a homophobic / everybody else issue. So why then did this happen. Unless there are more homophobes then there are everybody else’s? I hope not.

Based on regulations that require the justices to rule within 90 days of oral arguments in a case, the Supreme Court's decision in the legal challenge to Proposition 8 now will fall on one of three remaining days: next Tuesday or Thursday, or June 1. The high court only rules on Mondays and Thursdays, but will issue rulings next Tuesday because of the Memorial Day holiday.

Freshman Democrat Alan Grayson Opposes Obama's War Policy

Share |

In a recent article in The New York Times, Congressional Democrats are quoted for their unease with President Obama’s seemingly open-ended commitment in Afghanistan. The most out-spoken among those in the article was Alan Grayson, a freshman from Florida. Regarding Democrats who are expressing outright opposition to continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Grayson said:

“There is no need in the 21st century to do this, to make us safe,” Representative Alan Grayson, a freshman Democrat from Florida, said of the continuing American-led wars. “This is a 19th-century strategy being played out at great expense in both money and blood in the 21st century, in the wrong time at the wrong place.”

“It’s wrong,” Mr. Grayson added. “That’s why I am going to vote against it.”


What an unusual concept it must be for Republican’s to grasp, that just because you share the same political affiliation with the president, it does not mean that you march blindly in his or her footsteps. Grayson was the subject of a 2007 article in Vanity Fair where David Rose wrote about an ambitious lawyer named Alan Grayson, who at the time was suing KBR and other defense contractors in Iraq for alleged fraud on behalf of whistleblowers and American taxpayers. Grayson ran for Congress unsuccessfully in 2006 He ran again in 2008, and this time was elected to represent Florida’s 8th district.

Read Full Article Here

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/05/an-interview-with-antiwar-freshman-democratic-congressman-alan-grayson.html

Sarah Palin: Still Defending Her Diarrhea Of The Mouth

Share |

May 20, 2009
By Chico Brisbane
chicobrisbane.blogspot.com

For former President George W. Bush, the war in Iraq was a crusade. Gov. Sarah Palin called it “a task from God. However, in an interview with ABC News last week, the one-time vice presidential candidate tried to explain away her verbage when referring to the bloody war in Iraq as a task from God. In the process, Palin contradicted herself on previous statements that human activity did not cause global warming.

She also defended asking for federal earmarks for Alaska after painting herself as a one-woman crusade against such wasteful spending, and not just as the Executive, but also too, when she was the Mayor of Wasilla. However, after the campaign we learned that she actually lobbied for them then as well. The self-proclaimed caribou hunting, lipstick wearing, snow machine riding, hockey mom seemed as unprepared and poorly spoken as she did during last years campaign.

I’m not counting Palin out just quite yet, but if there has ever been a political figure besides Joe Biden that you can count on to say the wrong thing at the worst time, it’s Sarah Palin. The difference is that the things that Biden says are silly and not well thought-out. Palin’s verbal diarrhea is calculated and routed in her extremist views. A case in point would be here desire to see abortion outlawed including in cases of rape and incest. However, you have to admit that Joseph R. Biden Jr. was dead-balls accurate when he said that Sarah Palin was a “backwards step” for woman. I think that was the point when even the most disenfranchised former Hillary supporter said WTF?

Make no mistake; Sarah Palin was a more formidable opponent than John McCain could have been in two of his lifetimes, yet his greatest misfortune in life besides being a prisoner of war, was picking Sarah Palin as “his” vice presidential running mate. No candidate will ever be successful with this woman at the bottom of the ticket. Palin will rise and fall all on her own as she's done her entire life and it surprises me, knowing what we now know about her, the she would have accepted the co-pilots chair to begin with. That's not how it is in her married life, so it stands to reason that the same would apply in her political life.

One Percent Doctrine: A Ron Suskind Masterpiece

Share |

The most interesting book I have ever read twice.
CHICO BRISBANE -

What is the guiding principle of the world's most powerful nation as it searches for enemies at home and abroad? The One Percent Doctrine is the deeply secretive core of America's real playbook: a default strategy, designed by Dick Cheney, that separates America from its moorings, and has driven everything -- from war in Afghanistan to war in Iraq to the global search for jihadists.
The story begins on September 12, 2001, the day America began to gather itself for a response to the unimaginable. Ultimately, that reply would shape the nation's very character.
Suskind tells us what actually occurred over the next three years, from the inside out, by tracing the steps of the key actors -- the notables, from the President and Vice President to George Tenet and Condoleeza Rice, who oversee the "war on terror" and report progress back to an anxious nation; and the invisibles, the men and women just below the line of sight, left to improvise plans to defeat a new kind of enemy in an hour-by-hour race against disaster. The internal battles between these two teams -- one, under the hot lights; the other, actually fighting the fight -- reveal everything about what America faces, and what it has done, in this age of terror.

Senate Passes Credit Card Overhaul Bill

Share |

The Senate voted on Tuesday to prohibit credit card companies from arbitrarily raising a person's interest rate and charging many of the exorbitant fees that have become customary — and crippling — to cash-strapped consumers. The overwhelming bipartisan vote of 90-5 was lawmakers' way of telling Americans that they haven't been forgotten amid a recession that has left hundreds of thousands jobless or facing foreclosure.
Full Story

Hispanic Voters Gaining Political Ground

Share |

The country's Hispanic voting population is gaining political ground, rallying behind the new president, and keeping immigration reform close to its heart, according to poll results released Monday.

"It's a very personal issue," Sergio Bendixen, president of Bendixen & Associates, a Coral Gables-based consulting and research firm, said of immigration in a telephone news conference. "What's new in this poll is the growing intensity among Hispanic voters."

In Spanish-English interviews with 800 Hispanic voters from Florida to California, researchers from Bendixen's group found that Hispanic voters identify more closely with the Democratic party than the Republican party, and that they view President Barack Obama as a leader sympathetic to immigration issues. The pro-immigration campaign America's Voice also sponsored the report.

Researchers interviewed Hispanic voters from 13 states from April 28-May 5. Fifteen percent of those interviewed lived in Florida, 29 percent in California, and 24 percent in Texas. The survey's error margin: 4 percentage points. A central part of the survey was finding how the 12-13 million Hispanic eligible voters are casting ballots. Although some Hispanic voters have sided with Republicans in the past, the report showed that a majority of those interviewed backed President Barack Obama. Sixty eight percent of respondents said they "supported" Obama in the 2008 presidential election, compared to 30 percent who supported GOP candidate John McCain. Seventy-one percent of respondents said the Democratic Party best represents the opinion of the Hispanic community on immigration issues, compared to 11 percent who mentioned the Republican Party.

To read the complete article, visit http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/story/1054846.html

Dick Cheney's Torture Program Exposed

Share |

For all of Dick Cheney's recent efforts to defend his torture program, it all seem too little and too late now that orders to torture have been traced directly back to the former vice president himself.

Former Senator Norm Colemen (R) Under FBI Investigation

Share |

The FBI is investigating allegations that former Senator Norm Coleman had clothing and other items purchased on his behalf by a longtime friend and businessman Nasser Kazeminy, according to a source in Minnesota who was interviewed recently by federal agents.
E.K. Watkins, a spokesman for the Minnesota FBI, would neither confirm nor deny the report. The source provided details of the interview to the Huffington Post, in addition to copies of business cards left by the agents.

The FBI has also been conducting interviews in Texas, according to media reports, in regards to different allegations that Kazeminy tried to steer $75,000 to Coleman through his wife's employer. Up to this point, there have not been reports of any FBI work taking place in Coleman's home state.

The Minnesota source said the FBI questioning focused on whether Kazeminy had purchased clothing on Coleman's behalf, reports of which surfaced in October. At the time, Coleman vehemently denied the allegations. "Nobody but me and my wife buy my suits," he said.The source, who requested to speak anonymously to discuss the matter more frankly, said that payments made to the company that employed the former senator's wife, Laurie Coleman, were also addressed.

In April, Norm Coleman requested permission from the Federal Election Commission to use his remaining Senate campaign funds to pay legal fees resulting from the lawsuit filed against Kazeminy. A request for comment from Coleman's office went unreturned. The receptionist, upon hearing the topic of inquiry, called the matter "old news." In the past, both Coleman, who is engaged in the final stages of a lengthy election recount battle, and Kazeminy, a longtime benefactor of the Minnesota Republican, have denied any wrongdoing.

The possibility exists that the sole target of the FBI's work is Kazeminy and not Coleman. The prominent businessman stands accused of fraud for his handling of the company Deep Marine Technology. As part of that suit, former Deep Marine CEO Paul McKim alleged that he was forced to overlook $75,000 in payments to Hays Company, the employer of Coleman's wife.
Separately, it has been reported that Kazeminy made purchases on behalf of Coleman himself. Ken Silverstein of Harper's magazine was the first to report that suits had been bought on the then-Senator's behalf. A the time, Coleman's chief of staff would only rebut the charge by saying that he "has reported every gift he has ever received."

: Coleman Fbi, Fbi Investigation, Fbi Minnesota, Kazeminy Suits, Nasser Kazeminy, Norm Coleman, Norm Coleman Minnesota, Politics News

Am I Wrong To Regret Voting For Obama?

Share |

When George W. Bush invaded Iraq, he committed the United States to the reckless task of disassembling a sovereign nation, and then reassembling it according to his wishes. In the process of mishandling the war, the country and congress became aware of just how misleading the president and his administration were in seeking to gain approval for the war. Now that Bush is out of office, internal DOJ memos are casting a far more sinister light on the former president and vice presidents insatiable appetite for war.

In an attempt to counter the recently declassified memos, the former vice president has embarked on a media tour to justify the torture detainees while other Bush sycophants echo the same flimsy rational. They claim that water boarding is not torture and even if it is, it was necessary to keep America safe from another terrorist attack. The bottom line is that where we go one as a nation, we go all as a nation, and if we facilitate our own Hanoi Hilton, we have no moral ground to stand on should American soldiers be subjected to torture in the future. NONE WHATSOEVER!

When George H.W. Bush was ramping up to the Gulf War, Jimmy Carter sent a letter to the United Nations Security Council urging them not to rush into war without exploring a negotiated solution. The first President Bush and other Republicans in Washington considered this treasonous, a former president trying to thwart a sitting one, lobbying foreign diplomats to oppose his own country on a war resolution.

In 2002, when George W. Bush was ramping up to his war against Saddam, Al Gore made a speech trying to slow down that war resolution, pointing out that pivoting from Osama to Saddam for no reason, initiating “pre-emptive” war, and blowing off our allies would undermine the war on terror.

Charles Krauthammer called Gore’s speech “a disgrace.” Michael Kelly, his fellow Washington Post columnist, called it “vile” and “contemptible.” Newt Gingrich himself said that the former vice president Gore asserting that President Bush was making America less safe was “well outside the mark of an appropriate debate.”

“I think the president should be doing what he thinks is best as commander in chief,” Gingrich said flatly.

Now, however, Gingrich backs Dick Cheney when he asserts that President Obama has made America less safe. What was once treasonous is now ones civic duty in the minds of many republicans that fear for the demise of their party. Asked by Bob Schieffer on Sunday how America could torture when it made a mockery of our ideals, Cheney blithely gave an answer that surely would have been labeled treasonous by Rush Limbaugh, if a Democratic ex-vice president had said it about a Republican president.

“Well, then you’d have to say that, in effect, we’re prepared to sacrifice American lives rather than run an intelligent interrogation program that would provide us the information we need to protect America,” Doomsday Dick said.

The man who never talked is now the man who won’t shut up. The man who’s “SO WHAT?” line was the usual response to public opinion is now whining at nausium about how President Obama is holding back documents that should be made public. Cheney, who had five deferments to get out of going to Vietnam, would rather follow an oxy-cotin addict like Rush Limbaugh who has had three divorces and who also avoided Vietnam, than a four-star general who spent his life serving his country.

“Bush 41 cares about decorum and protocol,” said an official. “I’m sure he doesn’t appreciate Cheney acting out. He is giving the whole party a black eye just as Jeb is out there trying to renew the party.”

Cheney unleashed, egged on by the combative Lynne and Liz, is pretty much the same as Cheney underground: He’s batty, and he thinks he was the president. Bush admired Cheney’s balls, but grew increasingly skeptical of him, the more he learned about foreign policy himself, and the more he got pulled into a diplomatic mode by Condi in the second term. There were even reports of W. doing a funny Cheney imitation and that it dawned on him that Cheney and Rummy represented a scofflaw, paranoid Nixon cell within his White House.

“Toward the end, 43 was just as confused as anybody about what makes Cheney tick,” said a Bush family loyalist.

Cheney’s numskull ideas — he still loves torture (dubbed “13th-century” stuff by Bob Woodward), Gitmo and scaring the bejesus out of Americans. He has no coherent foreign policy viewpoint. He still doesn’t fathom that his brutish invasion of Iraq unbalanced that part of the world, empowered Iran and was a force multiplier for Muslims who hate America. He left our ports unsecured, our food supply unsafe, the Taliban rising and Osama on the loose. No matter if or when terrorists attack here — and they’re on their own timetable, not a partisan red/blue state timetable — Cheney will be deemed the primary one who made America more vulnerable. W.’s dark surrogate father is trying to pull the G.O.P. into a black hole of zealotry, just as the sensible brother who lost his future to the scamp brother is trying to get his career back on track.

When Cheney was in the first Bush administration, he was odd man out. Poppy, James Baker, Brent Scow croft and Colin Powell corralled Cheney’s “Genghis Khan” side, as it was known, and his “rough streak.” Cheney didn’t care for Powell even then.But with W., “Back Seat” — Cheney’s Secret Service name in the Ford administration — clambered up front. Then he totaled the car. And no amount of yapping on TV is going to change that when history is written. On the other hand, I have become so frustrated by President Obama's soft stand on holding those responsible for these war crimes accountable, that I am on the verge of regretting my November 3, 2008 for one Barack Hussein Obama. Was Sean Hannity right all along?

Chico Brisbane

Gay Leaders Meet Privately With Kristen Gillibrand

Share |

Kirsten Gillibrand is having a closed-door meet-and-greet with prominent members of the gay community in Manhattan tonight, and among the expected guests are, according to a knowledgeable source, Howard Koeppel and Mark Hsiao, the gay couple Rudy Giuliani lived with briefly during his divorce, but whose recent wedding Giuliani skipped.

The meeting, according to another source, is taking place at 5:30 p.m. at the Gramercy Park South home of Jeff Soref, a major Democratic gay-rights activist. Also expected to attend are City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Eliot Spitzer’s former aide, Sean Patrick Maloney, the executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, Alan Van Cappelle, and Dr. Marjorie Hill, the chief executive officer of the Gay Men’s Health Crisis.

The meeting comes amid growing speculation about the challenges Gillibrand will face in a Democratic primary next year. She has, for her part, been reaching out to adddress concerns about positions she took during her one term as a member of Congress, where she represented a conservative-leaning district near Albany.

Jason Horowitz reported earlier this year that Gillibrand had to promise David Paterson she would make connections with the gay community before he would name her senator.

Bush Failure To Disclose Waterboarding Appears To Violate Law

Share |

From: Huffington Post

Bush Failure To Disclose Waterboarding Appears To Violate Law


The furor over when and whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed about the use of waterboarding has distracted attention from what is, perhaps, a far more problematic revelation regarding the Bush administration's interrogation of suspected terrorists.
According to the testimony of two high-ranking Democrats and recently declassified CIA and Justice Department documents, the Bush White House failed to disclose the use of waterboarding until roughly half a year after it was first deployed. Other writers -- notably Marcy Wheeler -- have picked up on this timeline. But it is worth restating and highlighting again because, if accurate, it appears to constitute a violation of law by the former White House.

As documented by the Congressional Research Service, the President is required to ensure "that the congressional intelligence committees are kept 'fully and currently informed' of U.S. intelligence activities, including any 'significant anticipated intelligence activity.'" The basis of this is the 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act, which places a statutory obligation on the President to not just keep relevant committees "fully and currently informed" but to disclose "any significant anticipated intelligence activity."

"The requirement to report significant anticipated activities means, in practice, that the committees should be advised of important new program initiatives and specific activities that have major foreign policy implications," reads language accompanying the FY 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act. With these disclosure obligations in mind, it is worth revisiting what is known about who was briefed on the use of waterboarding and when. According to Office of Legal Council memos and other sources, it is clear that the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah began in August 2002.

Multiple records, meanwhile, show that Senate and House intelligence committee chairs and ranking members were briefed "on the interrogation" that fall. But the two Democrats who were briefed in 2002 -- Pelosi on September 4 and former Sen. Bob Graham on September 27 -- insist that they were not told waterboarding was in use. Indeed, the CIA disclosure about the time and content of the briefings describes the subject matter as "use of [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed."

The first time waterboarding was mentioned in a congressional briefing, it seems, comes on February 4, 2003 when Sens. Pat Roberts and John Rockefeller were told "in considerable detail" how EITs were deployed including "how the water board was used."

A day later, Rep. Jane Harman and an aide to Pelosi were briefed on detainee interrogation programs and techniques. "It was also discussed that interrogation methods were similar to those taught/used in SERE training." The SERE training served as the basis for the waterboarding techniques used on terrorism suspects.

In short: six months appeared to pass between the waterboarding of Zubaydah and the moment when Democrats were briefed on the matter.
Bush administration officials say that they kept all members of Congress in the know. But their statements leave some wiggle room. In a Washington Post op-ed, former House intelligence committee chairman and CIA Director Porter Goss wrote that he was "briefed on the CIA's 'High Value Terrorist Program,'" in the fall of 2002 and was "slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed." The phrase "were to actually be employed" noticeably differs from "were being employed."

So it seems plausible that, in the fall of 2002, members of Congress were either told only that the government was considering or planning the use of waterboarding or were kept in the dark entirely about the technique. Both Pelosi and Graham insist that latter is true. And if that is, in fact, the case, it would seem to place the Bush administration outside the law requiring disclosure of intelligence activities.

Is Harold Ford Trying Out For The Republican Party?

Share |

Harold Ford: I Would Have Voted To Approve Torture

This weekend, former Vice President Cheney repeated his claim that torture “saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of lives.” Of those, like President Obama, who condemn torture as making America less safe, Cheney insisted, “in effect, we’re prepared to sacrifice American lives rather than run an intelligent interrogation program that would provide us the information we need to protect America.”
This evening on MSNBC, former Democratic congressman Harold Ford, Jr., adopted many of Cheney’s right-wing talking points to defend torture, saying he was “not as outraged as some are about” what happened at Guantanamo. He suggested that he even would have voted to approve torture in order to “prevent the destruction of an American city”:
FORD: You have to remember when this was occurring. This is 2002, 2003. The country was in a different place, in a different space. And if you were to say to me, as an American, put aside my partisanship, that we have an opportunity to gain information that would prevent the destruction of an American city, to prevent killings in American cities, and we have to use certain techniques, I’m one of those Americans that would have voted a certain way, Chris. And that polling said it might have been torture, but I’m not as outraged.
Watch it:


Matthews was incredulous, telling Ford, “You are veering into Cheney country here.” He said Ford’s talking point about the destruction of an American city was “Cheney talk.” “That’s what he used to justify torture,” Matthews said.
The ticking-time-bomb scenario Ford seems to invoke is simply a “red herring” that “doesn’t happen” in the real world. And according to the interrogators themselves, torturing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah — the two Cheney most frequently cites as “proof” of torture’ effectiveness — provided no actionable intelligence.
ThinkProgress released an extensive report today, Why Bush’s ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Program Failed.

Bob Graham: I Don't Recall Being Briefed On Waterboarding

Share |

From TMP
By Zachary Roth - May 11, 2009, 4:13PM

Bob Graham, the Democratic former Florida senator, has said he has no memory of being told in a briefing about waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques, as a recently released CIA document indicates. Graham told Greg Sargent this afternoon: "I do not have any recollection of being briefed on waterboarding or other forms of extraordinary interrogation techniques, or Abu Zubaydah being subjected to them."

Greg adds:
Graham denied being told about EITs, and argued that the presence of two staff members at the meeting (as indicated in the records) would have made it "highly unusual" for the briefers to divulge such sensitive info. "I don't recall having had one of those kinds of briefings with staff present," he said. "That would defeat the purpose of keeping a tight hold" on the info.
Graham's claim would appear to cast further doubt on the accuracy of a CIA document released last week. The document indicates that Graham, at the time the chair of the Senate intelligence committee, attended a CIA briefing in September 2002, at which the use of harsh interrogation techniques on Zubaydah was discussed.

The document also indicates that a briefing a few weeks earlier for Nancy Pelosi, who was then the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, covered the same subjects. And that a top Pelosi aide was told in 2003 that torture had been used. Republican have used the documents to attack Pelosi, who has said that she wasn't briefed on the fact that the techniques had already been used. CIA director Leon Panetta noted in a letter accompanying the document that it may not be entirely accurate. We have our own call in to Graham and will let you know what we hear from him.

Glenn Beck: I Don't Wanna Go See Obama

Share |

It pains me to inform everyone that Fox News' Glenn Beck claims to have not had a good time at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, but we'll wait to see if he documents his feelings on YouTube the way he did his ass-surgery, just for the sake of comparison.

People like me, who are foolish enough to receive his newsletter, got the full transcript of his discussion of the ordeal from his radio show today. President Barack Obama was "robotic," but "a very good speaker," and "funny," all the same. Like a Terminator built by ACORN that makes fun of Rahm Emanuel, I guess.

Glenn apparently was very impressed by Todd Palin:
Todd Palin came up. He was very nice. He's a normal human being. And I said, Todd, don't destroy this ... Don't destroy your family, don't destroy your family. Are you guys strong enough as a family to weather this slime? And he said, "I think so. I think so." And I said, just be really careful, man. This is just bad, this is bad stuff here. And he said, "Oh, I know, I know." But he was very optimistic and he was a good guy. And normal, just normal.

Yep. Just a normal guy from Alaska at a party on the other side of the country without his spouse and with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren as his official political handler. Things don't get more normal than that. Beck and life partner Stu discussed the Wanda Sykes, as well:

GLENN: Kidney failure? Kidney failure? Really?

STU: Well, the thing is, though, it's a comedian and it's not like the President the President wasn't ...

GLENN: I was thrilled. If you saw because apparently I read a one reporter said that they cut to me and I was stonefaced during that. I wasn't laughing. But somebody else, they saw me on C Span and they cut away and I was smiling, leaning over talking to my wife. I was smiling. I said, "These people are so stupid. They've just written my comedy tour."

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: If this is the standard, oh, oh, I can't wait to go on and do comedy on stage. If this is the standard. Wanda Sykes, boy, I mean, I'm torn because I'd love you to be able to stand by my side and defend me when I list the people that I'd like to see get kidney failure.
So there you have it. Look for Beck's awesome comic riff on glomerular filtration and deranged acid levels, which, now that I type it, seems like something I could have predicted once I started juxtaposing the words "Glenn Beck" with "comedy tour."Anyway, it couldn't have been all that bad! Look how happy Glenn is to meet Karl Frisch of Media Matters For America!

Investigators Examining Interrogations, Legal Advice

Share |

Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Bush-era interrogation techniques. Greg Sargent flagged two paragraphs of the story revealing that the White House intends to release a 2004 CIA report that casts serious doubt on the effectiveness of Bush’s torture program:

When the Justice Department said seven years ago that CIA interrogators at a secret prison in Thailand could make a suspected al-Qaeda leader fear he was drowning, it prescribed precise limits: Water could be poured from a cup or small watering can onto a saturated cloth covering his mouth and nose, inhibiting breathing for up to 40 seconds. It could be repeated, after allowing three or four full breaths, for up to 20 minutes.

But when the technique was employed on Abu Zubaida and later on 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and al-Qaeda planner Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the interrogators in several cases applied what the CIA's Office of Inspector General described in a secret 2004 report as "large volumes of water" to the cloths, explaining that their aim was to be more "poignant and convincing," according to a recently declassified Justice Department account.

To assess whether interrogators complied with the department's guidance, Senate intelligence committee investigators are interviewing those involved, examining hundreds of CIA e-mails and reviewing a classified 2005 study by the agency's lawyers of dozens of interrogation videotapes, according to government officials who said they were not authorized to be quoted by name. Officials familiar with the Justice Department's inquiries into policymaking on detainees during the Bush administration said Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has not ruled out conducting a similar investigation.

The issue has attracted scrutiny because of President Obama's statement April 22 that those involved would be immune from prosecution if they "carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House."

Portions of the CIA inspector general report that have been made public and an account of detainees' experiences by the International Committee of the Red Cross highlight other potential excesses: the punching and beating of at least nine detainees in ways that appeared to go beyond authorized abdominal and facial "slaps"; the extended confinement of at least one detainee in a box so small that he had to crouch despite approval only for seated confinement; the slamming of detainees into firm walls, instead of the authorized pushing into a "false" wall that gave way; and the shackling of detainees' arms to overhead hooks or pipes, requiring that the prisoners stand for days at a time, despite the apparent absence of clear, written authorization by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for such shackling before 2005

The videotape study, which the Senate intelligence committee demanded to see in 2005 but did not receive until last year, assessed the legality of interrogations that occurred between April and December 2002. Its conclusions have not been disclosed, and the CIA destroyed the videotapes in late 2005. As early as October 2002, a lawyer for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, Jonathan Fredman, told officers at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that "the videotaping of even totally legal techniques will look 'ugly,' " a recent report by the Senate Armed Services Committee said.

Government officials familiar with the CIA's early interrogations say the most powerful evidence of apparent excesses is contained in the "top secret" May 7, 2004, inspector general report, based on more than 100 interviews, a review of the videotapes and 38,000 pages of documents. The full report remains closely held, although White House officials have told political allies that they intend to declassify it for public release when the debate quiets over last month's release of the Justice Department's interrogation memos.

According to excerpts included in those memos, the inspector general's report concluded that interrogators initially used harsh techniques against some detainees who were not withholding information. Officials familiar with its contents said it also concluded that some of the techniques appeared to violate the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the United States in 1994.

Although some useful information was produced, the report concluded that "it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks," according to the Justice Department's declassified summary of it. The threat of such an imminent attack was cited by the department as an element in its 2002 and later written authorization for using harsh techniques.
When the report was finished, CIA official Constance Rea told a New York court in January 2008, the inspector general "notified DOJ and other relevant oversight authorities of the review's findings." But two Bush administration officials privy to its conclusions said it did not provoke a specific CIA "referral" to the department suggesting an investigation of potential criminal liability, and no such investigation was undertaken at the time.

A U.S. intelligence official, asked for comment Friday, said that at the time of the inspector general report, the agency's general counsel "took issue with the interpretations of law put forward" in that report. "The bar for criminal referrals is low -- basically the possibility that a crime may have been committed. If it was all as clear-cut as the IG narrative suggests, why were no referrals made?"

The report's conclusions nonetheless prompted CIA general counsel John A. Rizzo to request fresh statements by the Justice Department that what the agency had been doing was indeed legal. Steven G. Bradbury, then deputy assistant attorney general, responded in May 2005 by issuing three opinions explaining why the interrogations did not violate the Convention Against Torture.

Legal experts say that bringing criminal charges against the CIA interrogators or those who ordered harsh methods would be akin to prosecuting police officers for brutality, but it could require also proving that the interrogators acted in bad faith.
David Kaye, a former State Department lawyer who runs UCLA's International Human Rights Program, said, "I don't think we know . . . the mechanics of how OLC legal advice made its way to people in the field, and it's the mechanics that will help investigators know whether there was bad faith in the interrogation program on the ground."

He added that U.S. anti-torture laws bar even "the conspiracy to commit torture," and those are the provisions that "should cause concern for [any] senior-level officials" who sanctioned improper interrogations, even from a distance.