The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Wheezer]

For other drugs, the limits are 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams for LSD.

Fifteen lousy mics?  That's a subclinical dose, and analytically preposterous for a police department to measure.

[Jon]

For other drugs, the limits are 50 milligrams of heroin, 40 milligrams for methamphetamine and 0.015 milligrams for LSD.

Fifteen lousy mics?  That's a subclinical dose, and analytically preposterous for a police department to measure.

You've got my vote, sir. Whatever election you stand in.

[Oleg]

We'll see how the "Cash for Clunkers" program plays out, but a co-worker who has well-known financial issues and has been driving assorted clunkers to work since she started here four years ago (she's had tow-trucks AND Repo men take her various vehicles out of our parking lot) rolled in to work yesterday in a brand new car. She was bragging what a good deal she got. We now have a pool on how long she'll have it.

What does this have to with cash-for-clunkers?  She found some lender willing to lend her money.  Good for her?

And how are all those people who "found some lender willing to lend (them) money" for a house they couldn't afford or didn't have good credit doing now that they're facing foreclosure?

I'd imagine pretty badly.  But, I still don't see what that has to do with cash-for-clunkers, either.

[R-V]

THAT.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/my_date_with_death_in_denmark.cfm

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

THAT.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/my_date_with_death_in_denmark.cfm

THAT links to THIS...

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0809/steele_on_death_panels_0b7b44e0-273f-4407-8fb8-686c895a6016.html

Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the false "death panel" rumor about President Obama's health care plan is a "grassroots" notion that he does not know if he believes.

Steele said he does not regret that Republicans such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich raised "death panel" issue.

"Some characterize it as unfortunate. Others characterize it as a reflection of what they think and what they feel," Steele said in an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "That comes from some place and is something that's out there in the grassroots of America, not just Republicans."

Asked if he thinks there is a "death panel" provision in the bill – a suggestion that has been proven untrue and that the White House has spent a week trying to knock down – Steele said he does not know.

"It may or may not be. I don't know. We don't know what the bill is," Steele said. "But there's clearly an attempt by at least the House members to put in place a structure that causes concern for the American people in respect to end of life decisions. I think that's a legitimate point. You don't have to call it death panels if you don't want to. You can call it a panel. I call it rationing."

Your party leadership, GOPers.

What a fucking slimeball.

(He is right on one count, though: It's not just Republicans; it's LaRouchies, too.)

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Are they gonna hurt us, Walter?

No, Donny. These men are cowards.

The GOP Has Become a Party of Nihilists

...

Given the heinous dust that's been raised, it seems likely that end-of-life counseling will be dropped from the health-reform legislation. But that's a small point, compared with the larger issue that has clouded this summer: How can you sustain a democracy if one of the two major political parties has been overrun by nihilists? And another question: How can you maintain the illusion of journalistic impartiality when one of the political parties has jumped the shark?

...

It is a very different story among Republicans. To be sure, there are honorable conservatives, trying to do the right thing. There is a legitimate, if wildly improbable, fear that Obama's plan will start a process that will end with a health-care system entirely controlled by the government. There are conservatives — Senator Lamar Alexander, Representative Mike Pence, among many others — who make their arguments based on facts. But they have been overwhelmed by nihilists and hypocrites more interested in destroying the opposition and gaining power than in the public weal. The philosophically supple party that existed as recently as George H.W. Bush's presidency has been obliterated. The party's putative intellectuals — people like the Weekly Standard's William Kristol — are prosaic tacticians who make precious few substantive arguments but oppose health-care reform mostly because passage would help Barack Obama's political prospects. In 1993, when the Clintons tried health-care reform, the Republican John Chafee offered a creative (in fact, superior) alternative — which Kristol quashed with his famous "Don't Help Clinton" fax to the troops. There is no Republican health-care alternative in 2009. The same people who rail against a government takeover of health care tried to enforce a government takeover of Terri Schiavo's end-of-life decisions. And when Palin floated the "death panel" canard, the number of prominent Republicans who rose up to call her out could be counted on one hand.

A striking example of the prevailing cravenness was Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who has authored end-of-life counseling provisions and told the Washington Post that comparing such counseling to euthanasia was nuts — but then quickly retreated when he realized that he had sided with the reality-based community against his Rush Limbaugh-led party. Mitt Romney, the Republican front-runner for President according to most polls, actually created a universal-health-care plan in Massachusetts that looks very much like the proposed Obamacare, but he spends much of his time trying to fudge the similarities and was AWOL on the "death panels." Why are these men so reluctant to be rational in public?

An argument can be made that this is nothing new. Dwight Eisenhower tiptoed around Joe McCarthy. Obama reminded an audience in Colorado that opponents of Social Security in the 1930s "said that everybody was going to have to wear dog tags and that this was a plot for the government to keep track of everybody ... These struggles have always boiled down to a contest between hope and fear." True enough. There was McCarthyism in the 1950s, the John Birch Society in the 1960s. But there was a difference in those times: the crazies were a faction — often a powerful faction — of the Republican Party, but they didn't run it. The neofascist Father Coughlin had a huge radio audience in the 1930s, but he didn't have the power to control and silence the elected leaders of the party that Limbaugh — who, if not the party's leader, is certainly the most powerful Republican extant — does now...

And then there's Newt.

Liars and cowards.

[Wheezer]

An argument can be made that this is nothing new. Dwight Eisenhower tiptoed around Joe McCarthy. Obama reminded an audience in Colorado that opponents of Social Security in the 1930s "said that everybody was going to have to wear dog tags and that this was a plot for the government to keep track of everybody ... These struggles have always boiled down to a contest between hope and fear."

Dog tags might be more secure, as a practical outcome.  Anyway, how is this "nihilist," exactly?

[Quality Start Machine]

An argument can be made that this is nothing new. Dwight Eisenhower tiptoed around Joe McCarthy. Obama reminded an audience in Colorado that opponents of Social Security in the 1930s "said that everybody was going to have to wear dog tags and that this was a plot for the government to keep track of everybody ... These struggles have always boiled down to a contest between hope and fear."

Dog tags might be more secure, as a practical outcome.  Anyway, how is this "nihilist," exactly?

I think calling the GOP "nihilist" is being a bit excessive. By "a bit" of course I mean calling a lit match a forest fire.

The point is correct, the GOP leadership has completely lost focus, just as the Democrats had. Having the basic philosophy of "if he's fer it, we're agin' it" won't work against a guy who pretty much has his shit together.

At some point, they need to stop trotting out Kristol, Krauthammer and Morris, get some guys with brains in there, and put together some sort of legislative agenda that offers some solid alternatives.

Either that, or look at the next 30 years of Democratic majorities in Congress, and lots of Democrats in the White House.

[Quality Start Machine]

Here is the next place for our pal to start cherry-picking.

[R-V]

Dare to hope?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/206300

...Stuff about the possibility of some goddamn accountability for that torture bullshit.

Fuck. Yes. It's about time. How can there be a deterrent for subsequent administrations to pull this shit(including this one) without a special prosecutor? Nothing has been confirmed yet though, and there's conflicting reports on what's gonna hai:

I like what Scott Horton thinks is gonna hai (carte blanche for the special prosecutor).

For now, however, it appears that Holder's current decision focuses only on the development of new interrogation techniques and their use at the direction of the Bush administration. Under these terms, the prosecutor would be tasked to look at the role played by Justice Department figures and other government lawyers at various stages of the process; but criminal investigations usually target specific crimes, not individuals, and this would be no exception.

I don't like what the WaPost thinks is gonna hai. Abu Ghraib all over again (punishment for those who carried out the policies, but not who formulated them).

The actions of higher-level Bush policymakers are not under consideration for possible investigation.

Bump.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has decided to appoint a prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators and contractors may have violated anti-torture laws and other statutes when they allegedly threatened terrorism suspects, according to two sources familiar with the move.

With Monday's looming public announcement, however, the attorney general and his national security team appear to be staking out a middle ground -- rejecting a broad inquiry that could result in possible prosecutions of Justice Department lawyers in the Bush years as well as cabinet officers who developed counterterrorism policy; but giving civil liberties advocates at least part of what they wanted without supporting a full, independent truth commission to examine a host of Bush national security practices.

Boo.

[Quality Start Machine]

With Monday's looming public announcement, however, the attorney general and his national security team appear to be staking out a middle ground -- rejecting a broad inquiry that could result in possible prosecutions of Justice Department lawyers in the Bush years as well as cabinet officers who developed counterterrorism policy; but giving civil liberties advocates at least part of what they wanted without supporting a full, independent truth commission to examine a host of Bush national security practices.

Boo.

Each Presidency generally lets the transgressions of previous Presidencies go, even if the party in the White House changes (see: Iran-Contra). It's the one barrier left in politics, where there hasn't been any payback.

Give it time.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Boo.

Boo, indeed.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Boo.

Boo, indeed.

Boo tempered?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/special-prosecutor-by-dday-wapo-sez.html

The narrowness of this investigation, focused on only the CIA personnel who colored outside the lines set down by moral lepers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, is reprehensible. If it only extends that far, we're seeing a replay of the Abu Ghraib investigation which sent Lynndie England to jail but let those who authorized and directed the abuse free with nary a warning. Basically, Holder is following the Office of Professional Responsibility report, which recommended that they reopen about a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, some of which include murders. I hold no brief for the CIA personnel who engaged in this, but confining the mandate to the low men and women on the totem pole will do nothing to chill the potential for such abuse to happen again. If any old lackey in the Office of Legal Counsel can write up an opinion essentially validating torture, and they become de facto legal as long as those using the guidelines follow them generally, we don't really have a rule of law anymore. And future Presidents will easily discern the loophole in the system.

However, just the possibility of prosecuting individuals who did, after all, break the law, is enough for establishmentarians like Leon Panetta to reportedly threaten resignation. And the Durham investigation, in the end, is up to John Durham. He can be given a mandate, but Eric Holder has said in the past that he cannot circumscribe an investigation so much as to effectively immunize certain individuals. If the small fish flip, Durham, like any prosecutor, can find out who authorized their actions. And that can lead to the Bush White House.

I think Panetta, and the CIA in general, are probably more angered by the Obama Administration taking some of their responsibilities away, like giving the White House oversight through the National Security Council over the "High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group." (That task force, by the way, unanimously determined that the Army Field Manual shall be the ultimate parameter when questioning suspects.) This is probably more of a turf war than anything.

But maybe, just maybe, CIA - particularly its Bush-era holdovers - know that an investigation, once started, is hard to stop or rein in.

Cautiously: "Maybe."

Holder:

...

I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General's report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.

...The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.

...

Sounds like nothing's set in stone.

[Gil Gunderson]

Boo.

Boo, indeed.

Boo tempered?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/special-prosecutor-by-dday-wapo-sez.html

The narrowness of this investigation, focused on only the CIA personnel who colored outside the lines set down by moral lepers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, is reprehensible. If it only extends that far, we're seeing a replay of the Abu Ghraib investigation which sent Lynndie England to jail but let those who authorized and directed the abuse free with nary a warning. Basically, Holder is following the Office of Professional Responsibility report, which recommended that they reopen about a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, some of which include murders. I hold no brief for the CIA personnel who engaged in this, but confining the mandate to the low men and women on the totem pole will do nothing to chill the potential for such abuse to happen again. If any old lackey in the Office of Legal Counsel can write up an opinion essentially validating torture, and they become de facto legal as long as those using the guidelines follow them generally, we don't really have a rule of law anymore. And future Presidents will easily discern the loophole in the system.

However, just the possibility of prosecuting individuals who did, after all, break the law, is enough for establishmentarians like Leon Panetta to reportedly threaten resignation. And the Durham investigation, in the end, is up to John Durham. He can be given a mandate, but Eric Holder has said in the past that he cannot circumscribe an investigation so much as to effectively immunize certain individuals. If the small fish flip, Durham, like any prosecutor, can find out who authorized their actions. And that can lead to the Bush White House.

I think Panetta, and the CIA in general, are probably more angered by the Obama Administration taking some of their responsibilities away, like giving the White House oversight through the National Security Council over the "High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group." (That task force, by the way, unanimously determined that the Army Field Manual shall be the ultimate parameter when questioning suspects.) This is probably more of a turf war than anything.

But maybe, just maybe, CIA - particularly its Bush-era holdovers - know that an investigation, once started, is hard to stop or rein in.

Cautiously: "Maybe."

Holder:

...

I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General's report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.

...The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.

...

Sounds like nothing's set in stone.

So, let's see how this all plays out?

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Boo.

Boo, indeed.

Boo tempered?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/special-prosecutor-by-dday-wapo-sez.html

The narrowness of this investigation, focused on only the CIA personnel who colored outside the lines set down by moral lepers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, is reprehensible. If it only extends that far, we're seeing a replay of the Abu Ghraib investigation which sent Lynndie England to jail but let those who authorized and directed the abuse free with nary a warning. Basically, Holder is following the Office of Professional Responsibility report, which recommended that they reopen about a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, some of which include murders. I hold no brief for the CIA personnel who engaged in this, but confining the mandate to the low men and women on the totem pole will do nothing to chill the potential for such abuse to happen again. If any old lackey in the Office of Legal Counsel can write up an opinion essentially validating torture, and they become de facto legal as long as those using the guidelines follow them generally, we don't really have a rule of law anymore. And future Presidents will easily discern the loophole in the system.

However, just the possibility of prosecuting individuals who did, after all, break the law, is enough for establishmentarians like Leon Panetta to reportedly threaten resignation. And the Durham investigation, in the end, is up to John Durham. He can be given a mandate, but Eric Holder has said in the past that he cannot circumscribe an investigation so much as to effectively immunize certain individuals. If the small fish flip, Durham, like any prosecutor, can find out who authorized their actions. And that can lead to the Bush White House.

I think Panetta, and the CIA in general, are probably more angered by the Obama Administration taking some of their responsibilities away, like giving the White House oversight through the National Security Council over the "High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group." (That task force, by the way, unanimously determined that the Army Field Manual shall be the ultimate parameter when questioning suspects.) This is probably more of a turf war than anything.

But maybe, just maybe, CIA - particularly its Bush-era holdovers - know that an investigation, once started, is hard to stop or rein in.

Cautiously: "Maybe."

Holder:

...

I have reviewed the OPR report in depth. Moreover, I have closely examined the full, still-classified version of the 2004 CIA Inspector General's report, as well as other relevant information available to the Department. As a result of my analysis of all of this material, I have concluded that the information known to me warrants opening a preliminary review into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations. The Department regularly uses preliminary reviews to gather information to determine whether there is sufficient predication to warrant a full investigation of a matter. I want to emphasize that neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow.

...The men and women in our intelligence community perform an incredibly important service to our nation, and they often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances. They deserve our respect and gratitude for the work they do. Further, they need to be protected from legal jeopardy when they act in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance. That is why I have made it clear in the past that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. I want to reiterate that point today, and to underscore the fact that this preliminary review will not focus on those individuals.

...

Sounds like nothing's set in stone.

So, let's see how this all plays out?

That's the one.

Cautiously.