Obama is Stone Cold Ruthless

What did the president do when he needed Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai to agree to a runoff in the country's tainted elections? He sent Kerry. And Kerry talked. Endlessly. A senior American official told the AP that talks went deep into the night on several occasions. Let it be known, world leaders, do not fuck with Obama. Next time he's sending Tim McCarver.

Church/State, Politics and Money

On Tuesday, voters in Maine were asked to allow a law supporting same-sex marriage to stand. The law was passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor. Marriages were to begin 9/14/2009 but delayed pending Tuesday's vote.

Four states have been progressive enough to pass similar laws with New Hampshire starting Jan. 1, 2010. Three states plus Washington, D.C. recognize the marriages from other states but do not allow licenses to be issued in their state. Several European countries (including Spain which is about 94% Catholic) and South Africa allow gay marriage.

Since September, however, the forces of the Church and Focus on the Family vowed to defeat the law. Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs, donated $115,266 in Maine and $91,000 to fight a law in Washington state. Tom Minnery, senior vice president of Focus Action, the group's political arm, said it would have donated more were it not for Washington's campaign finance limits.

Then we have the Catholic Church; an entity whose worth is incalculable. The Boston Diocese alone is estimated to be worth $500 million. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, Maine shows expenditures of $511,934.05 to StandForMarriageMaine.com since June 9th, 2009. A chart of the contributions to the Diocese of Portland dating from July 16th, 2009 shows $553,608.27. Much of the "contributions" were out-of-state. In other words, money for meddling in Maine's fight for equality. These monies went to print and TV attack ads featuring frightened children and misinformation.

I've always supported the concept of separation of Church and State. Opponents always say "But it's not in the Constitution!" meaning those particular words are not there. I agree, they aren't. But the 1st Amendment contains what is known as the Establishment Clause. It prohibits a) forming a National Religion by Congress or b) showing a preference of one religion over another. These are commonly referred to as "separationist" and "accommodationist". But, the naysayers respond, "No, that's an interpretation!".

Not being a Constitutional lawyer (although I agree with the majority of them), I tell the "bad guys" that the Supreme Court was established in 1789 as the highest Federal Court in the country. It has the final say on legal matters with their powers of judicial review, an inarguable fact. Then I talk to them about the decision in Everson v. Board of Education.

Justice Black writing for the majority said "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State" and "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

It's unlawful for a religious entity to endorse a specific candidate. It's time for a law or Constitutional Amendment to finally put to rest the issue of separation. No organized religion, fellowship, union, society or coalition should be allowed to donate money advocating any side of a local, state or federal proposition before the voters. We can allow individual donations but only with the strictest of limits and maximum of punishments.

Extreme? Perhaps. But I fought hard against a defense of marriage act in Missouri several years ago and for a bond issue to expand my high school alma mater. Both of these were issues were valued to me, but both lost. Imagine that one day, you are confronted with outside groups attempting to overturn a law or defeat a ballot proposition. They might be the NRA, Focus on the Family, a church or even the TEA Partiers. They'll flood the area with money, bus in out-of-state people and disrupt town halls and meetings. When you're faced with defeat, you might wish something had been done earlier.

Whoever first said "all elections are local" was wrong. Dead wrong.

He Won't Do It Again

I know I regret all the supermassive financial leviathans I created that ruined the entire global economy.

From Bloomberg:

Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) -- John S. Reed, who helped engineer the merger that createdCitigroup Inc., apologized for his role in building a company that has taken $45 billion in direct U.S. aid and said banks that big should be divided into separate parts.

“I’m sorry,” Reed, 70, said in an interview yesterday. “These are people I love and care about. You could imagine emotionally it’s not easy to see what’s happened.”

Well, that oughta just about wrap up that debate.

Musto's Tragically Unfunny Bit Hurts MSNBC, Helps Sarah Palin

Ever since MSNBC's evening line up became a response to Fox News's conservative bias, they have situated their credibility precariously on a thin line of distinction--they consider themselves different from Fox because they stipulate that they are covering politics, not doing news.

That's a fair point. But that shield against criticism disappears when they make a mockery out of a legitimate news story by being mean spirited and, far worse, unfunny. This "sketch" done by Countdown regular Michael Musto on Lawrence O'Donnell's watch, he was sitting in for Keith Olbermann, is so tone deaf and shrill that it obscures the point of the story and likely illicited sympathy for Sarah Palin among those who don't know politics as well as they know that this shit is not funny.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

A commenter on Newsbusters' inevitable post about this sketch writes, "They can't use facts, just personal attacks and debasement." Sadly, that is exactly the impression this crap gives, which is extremely counterproductive because there are plenty of facts to use against Palin. Musto's unfunniness operates as such a distraction that it's hard to even follow what MSNBC is reporting--that Palin had a terribly unbecoming concession speech that she was desperate to give for self-serving reasons. The additional context that Vice Presidential candidates on the losing tickets do not give speeches on election night and that the McCain camp reportedly cut the lights to make sure Palin wouldn't give her awful speech is swallowed up by the image of Musto desperately trying to milk humor from a stone.

Italy Convicts Kidnappers

Court Sentences 22 CIA Agents, 1 USAF Colonel

From The BBC:

An Italian judge has convicted 23 Americans - all but one of them CIA agents - and two Italian secret agents for the 2003 kidnap of a Muslim cleric.

The agents were accused of abducting Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, known as Abu Omar, from Milan and sending him to Egypt, where he was allegedly tortured.

The trial, which began in June 2007, is the first involving the CIA's so-called "extraordinary rendition" programme.

The Obama administration has expressed its disappointment at the convictions. "We are disappointed by the verdicts," state department spokesman Ian Kelly said in Washington. He declined to comment further pending a written opinion from the judge, but said an appeal was likely.

Three Americans and five Italians were acquitted by the court in Milan.
[...]
The CIA's Milan station chief at the time, Robert Lady, was given an eight-year term, while the other 22 Americans convicted - one of them a US air force colonel - were sentenced to five years in prison.

A little more information that the BBC omits is available from this article at Al-Jazeera. For one thing the three Americans who were acquitted actually got a pass for having diplomatic immunity. For another the five Italians were acquitted because they were "protected by State Secrecy rules." Which leads one to wonder why the 2 convicted Italian agents were not covered by that umbrella. Hmmm...

The US State Department may be disappointed by the verdict, but I'm quite frankly delighted. And I'll tell you why. For more than three years now, over several posts, I've been saying that the weasel-word 'rendition' really means kidnapping, and should not be given any distinction any higher than that of an extreme criminal act. It's nice that a judge and jury agree. And as to the disappointment expressed by the US government, I already covered that in that post from Sept. 19, 2006.

In America we see a government that continues to deny their own criminal activity. Then when it becomes undeniable, they deny that there is anything illegal about it. Then, when THAT becomes undeniable, they try to retroactively make legal the most egregiously despicable actions. Sickening. As Glenn Greenwald asks, "How can you be an American citizen and not be completely outraged, embarrassed, and disgusted by this conduct?"

What they're disappointed with, frankly, is that their depraved indifference to the rule of law cannot be forcibly extended to other jurisdictions.

In an e-mail about this story Len Hart expressed the fervent hope, "Perhaps the CIA will --at last --be held accountable for its TERRORIST activities." I wouldn't advise him to hold his breath. Not with the kind of MSM reporting on the story that is exemplified by this exchange on CNN's The Situation Room.

Sorry, I have no transcript so this is paraphrased from memory (I wrote this in comments of the last post just minutes after hearing it however. It's pretty accurate as to the intent of what was said.) Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Jeffery Toobin, whose legal expertise puts him in a class with John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Orly Taitz.

Toobin: "the bad thing about this is that because of Interpol the [convicted criminals] have to avoid travel not only in Italy but most of the rest of Europe as well.

Blitzer: It's part of the job description of the CIA that they go into other countries, and break the law. They break and enter. They engage in bribery, and so forth. Italy is an ally. They're supposed to have an agreement with the US about things like this. The system failed somehow."

The only agreement that any foreign country might have with the US (at least so far as international law is concerned) about spies is this -- if a spy has an official embassy cover, when caught spying they are not charged, but simply declared Persona Non Grata and expelled from the country. As noted above this is what happened to the three CIA criminals who had diplomatic immunity. The others had to have been what is known as NOC's (meaning non-official cover,) and should have known that they were vulnerable to charges if they broke Italian law.

Any argument to the contrary can be boiled down to two words; American Exceptionalism. Which, you may be surprised to find out (assuming you're an American) has no foundation whatsoever in international law. None. And 'legal expert' Toobin had to have known that. So he's either an incredibly incompetent attorney or he's a liar. Or both.

There are other elements to this story that I'll just touch on here. First, what an incredibly ill-conceived and counter-productive operation this was. Kidnapping and torturing a Muslim cleric?! What the FUCK were they thinking?

The thought that comes to my mind is that infamous 9/12/01 quote from the Shrub, "If you're not with us you're with the terrorists." This adds the qualifier, "and if you're not with the terrorists YET, just wait til you see what we're planning."

Second, while I generally agree with the outcome of the case I'm a bit disconcerted about the relative weight of sentencing. It was my understanding that this kidnapping was carried out over the strenuous objections of Robert Seldon Lady, the Milan CIA station chief -- who rightly "saw it as ill-conceived and counter-productive." He was over-ruled by some political authority that one must assume extended right up to the White House, probably the OVP. Why then should he have gotten eight years when the doofuses who actually committed the crime got five? For that matter, if you're trying leaders in absentia anyway, why were Bush the Lesser and Shooter Dick not charged? This was nicely covered at Crooks and Liars last April.

It’s not easy for me to generate a lot of sympathy for a CIA man involved in a kidnapping, but I feel sorry for Bob Lady.
[...]
He and his wife loved Italy so much they bought a house in the foothills of the Alps and retired there in 2004. Months later an urgent call came, warning Lady to get out of Dodge — don’t even pack. The cops were on their way.

Tipped off, the Ladys successfully fled the country. But they left behind a bonanza of evidence in their dream home, not the least of which was a CIA surveillance photo of the kidnap victim, Osama Mustafa Hasan Nasr, known as Abu Omar...

The little guy stuck carrying out the operation (that he objected to) had to flee his home to avoid imprisonment, not to mention lost his wife, and all their property in Italy may go to Omar as restitution for his rendition...And the CIA abandoned Lady, disowning him as an employee and refusing to assist him in any way.

So, as with Abu Ghraib, the accountability begins and ends with the least powerful and never makes it up to the top decision makers.

As with everything the administration of Bush the Lesser touched, in this case loyalty only ever worked in one direction. Some days it just sucks to be Mr. Phelps.

"Good morning, Mr. Phelps. We have a mission for you.
...
...
As always, if you're caught or killed the secretary will disavow all knowledge of your actions."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDENDUM:
With any post that involves torture one feels compelled to remind readers that it is not only despicably inhuman, but is totally ineffective as an intelligence tool. Here's a quote on point from Nineteen Eighty-Four:

He became simply a mouth that uttered, a hand that signed, whatever was demanded of him. His sole concern was to find out what they wanted him to confess, and then confess it quickly, before the bullying started anew. He confessed to the assassination of eminent Party members, the distribution of seditious pamphlets, embezzlement of public funds, sale of military secrets, sabotage of every kind. He confessed that he had been a spy in the pay of the Eastasian government as far back as 1968. He confessed that he was a religious believer, an admirer of capitalism, and a sexual pervert. He confessed that he had murdered his wife, although he knew, and his questioners must have known, that his wife was still alive...It was easier to confess everything and implicate everybody.

NY-23, Flat Tires, Teabaggers and Redefining Victory

It's over for the Teabaggers in NY-23. Despite a deer-in-the-lights interview with Glenn Beck and glowing endorsements from Hannity, Palin, Pawlenty and Rush, Republican candidate and Tea Party favorite Doug Hoffman (who did not reside in NY-23 but was willing to move in district if he won) lost a Republican seat held by that party for 120 years.

So, who's to blame? Hoffman, naturally, blames ACORN and Dems of "stealing the election"! The campaign also accused Dems of slashing a volunteer's tires. However, the Wall Street Journal followed up with the Plattsburgh police and was told that the volunteer actually damaged his tire on a broken bottle. Campaign manager Dan Tripp had no comment.

Okay, so it was a broken bottle but it was probably thrown on the ground by a liberal. So what does a Teabagger have to say about ACORN?

Digby writes:

John Fund and Rush Limbaugh have been darkly predicting an outbreak of voter fraud by the ACORN conspiracy that is threatening to take over the world. Indeed, the rank and file is worried that ACORN has even infiltrated the campaign of the teabagging darling Doug Hoffman.

Dave Weigel reports from NY 23:

Outside, two dozen Hoffman supporters lined the sidewalks with signs that attacked Owens as a “Pelosi puppet” and an agent of ACORN.

“I was at a Tea Party, but this is too slow a process for me,” said John Dewitt, a contractor from Adams, N.Y. “I’m more on the violence side. I’m more of the Civil War, revolutionary kind of guy. I’m of the old school–you kick them in the ass and be done with it.”

The Hoffman backers outside of the Biden event all said they’d attended Tea Parties. Some were affiliated with Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project. All worried that ACORN was going to show up in the district, or even at the Biden event–a paranoia that led to some minor awkwardness when an African-American Hoffman worker walked by.

“This guy’s with ACORN,” said Dewitt.
“Definitely, not from around here,” said businessman Erik Dunk.

Those ACORNs are a bunch of shiftless welfare queens who are disenfranchising Real Americans.

That or they're working for your candidate's staff. Or you're a racist.

Now we have my favorite excuse - moving the goal posts and redefining the "victory". Local St. Louis Tea Party co-organizer Dana Loesch claims to be neither Democrat or Republican, just a conservative. However, her aim is to co-opt the GOP. She writes today:

"I’ve been going whole hog since February with my co-extremist, Bill Hennessy , since February. We didn’t do this to create some peashooter third party. We did it to help take over the GOP, to move this brick house back to its foundation. I am vehemently opposed to this movement being cop-opted into a third party and marginalized in the same manner that third parties are usually marginalized.

The GOP is a conservative party and that’s what this fight is to me, just as much as it’s about opposing the big government schemes oozing out of Washington.

We won in NY23. This blog served it’s purpose. Dede Scozzafava was dumped. She was dumped by the demographic to which she fronted, and when no one brought her Victorian freak show, she removed the mask and revealed herself, lest any doubters remained. We won when we forced the GOP to concede support. We won when we showed them that good political sense and sharp strategy is an instinct, not exclusive to the beltway elite. We won because we wrenched the reigns from their hands.

We the tea party have been leading since February. In order to survive, the GOP must finally cash the promise its collective mouth has been writing about “we the people” and all that jazz: it must relent and let the people lead. Asking politely is a formality: NY23 has shown that we have the power to take it when we want."

Get it? Hoffman, the Tea Party favorite lost the election, but THEY WON! "How?" you ask?

Well, they got rid of the NY Republican backed candidate Dede Scozzafava who left the race just days before the election. See, Dede was "a liberal" and "an ACORN-backed candidate, supported by the Working Families Party", not a true conservative Republican.

Even with "thousands of Tea Partiers from states as far away as California will have had an impact on what might otherwise have been an unnoticed special election. Local Tea Party Organizers across the country are overwhelmed by their people’s desire to help. Hoffman’s offices are overwhelmed with volunteers who are just showing up."

So what are the Teabaggers going to say when NY-23's new Rep is sworn into office and has a (D) behind his name? Maybe Al Franken's lawyers will have a new client.

Viagra Won't Fix That

Jon Stewart asks, "Is our Dick going soft?" after it is revealed that former Vice President Cheney equivocated 72 times in a 2004 interview with the FBI about the outing of Valerie Plame. The clip ends with a horrifying twist.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Is Our Dick Going Soft?
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Can't Someone Fun Buy NBC?

My thoughts on GE potentially selling NBC Universal to Comcast are posted over at The Daily Dose.

Two Commercials That Need to Die

Seems like there's always one or two commercials that just will not stop playing no matter how bad they are, and I don't watch a lot of TV!

First up--the fucking juice drinks and soda lady who's scared shitless of the possibility that the government might raise taxes on juice drinks and soda. Not juice, mind you, juice drinks.



The second one is the Direct TV ad with Dave Spade and Chris Farley. Seriously, Spade, you used to shit down the necks of celebrities that took tone deaf jobs like this. He not only did this horrible bit, he defended the decision by claiming Farley would have liked it and that the Direct TV spots are cool. Is a check getting that hard to come by? Go back on tour, dude. You were funny once. This is an abomination: