We have another Obama nominee who didn't pay taxes (notify the CDC. This is becoming an epidemic):
President Obama’s choice as chief of protocol for the State Department, a position that carries the status of an ambassadorship, did not file tax returns for 2005 and 2006, errors she corrected last November. The nominee, Capricia Penavic Marshall, has placed blame for the problem on the Postal Service and on miscommunication between her husband and their accountant.
Ah, the old "it got lost in the mail" excuse. I'm also wondering what kind of an accountant forgets to file one's income taxes. Perhaps the Dems all use the same one. Time for a switch.
—
President Obama is in trouble with a liberal group – for killing a fly during a television interview, in an impressive display of hand-eye coordination by our prez. PETA is upset. They are terming Obama's act an "execution," and called for President Miyagi to show compassion for "the least sympathetic animals." Compassion for unsympathetic creatures is a liberal trait, so PETA has a point here. I mean, who is a more unsympathetic animal than 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ? Liberals have sympathy for him. They'd even like to put President Bush in prison for swatting KSM. I have more sympathy for the fly.
—
An Iranian envoy to the IAEA, the UN atomic watchdog group, is gonna be in big trouble with the Mullahs back home, because he let the cat out of the bag regarding Iran's intentions to acquire nuclear weapons (like we didn't already know):
After saying as usual that Iran was only pursuing nuclear energy for civilian purposes, Ali Asghar Soltanieh strayed alarmingly from the Islamic republic's usual line.
"The whole Iranian nation are united… on (the) inalienable right of (having a) nuclear weapon," the envoy to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency said.
Oops. Maybe what Soltanieh meant was, Iran would only use their nuclear weapons for civilian purposes, like to nuke those civilian protestors and their crazy ideas about fair democratic elections.
—
It seems the Israelis have lost their appetite for Hopenchange. They no longer think Obama is pro-Israel, according to the latest poll:
The percentage of Jewish Israelis who see the Obama administration as being pro-Israel has declined from 31% to 6% since May 17 according to a JPost/Smith poll published in Friday's editions. In the intervening month, Obama gave his homily to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, and his administration has come into open conflict with Israel's leaders over a 'settlement freeze' and over the opening of the Gaza crossings without the release of kidnapped IDF corporal Gilad Shalit.
In related news, more Americans are starting to catch on to what Hopenchange really is – total domination by the federal government. Obama's poll ratings are dropping here too, down to 56% approval for the prez, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey:
According to the survey , the greatest loss of support was registered among those who described themselves as "politically independent."
"President Obama’s honeymoon is coming to an end," affirmed Chuck Todd, the NBC correspondent to the White House, while presenting the results of the survey.
"The public appears to be judging the president for some of his actions. There is now a growing concern over the budget deficit, as well as other government measures with respect to the economy," he added.
Outrageous. Judging the president for his actions ?!?! What kind of right-wing claptrap is Chuck Todd trying to pass off here ? You just gotta B-E-L-I-E-V-E, people. Don't worry your pretty little heads. Remember, Obama is "saving" jobs, even though we've lost 1.6 million jobs since the $800 billion Porkulus package was passed. Remember, Obama is "fiscally responsible," even though we're going to have the largest single year deficit in American history, with more enormous deficits as far as the eye can see. Don't worry, be happy. Besides, the Federal Reserve is in charge now, with the new financial rules Obama has put in place. The Fed will oversee everything, so it's all being handled. Problem solved.
As a reminder of how well the Fed handles things, just remember what a great job Ben Bernanke, the current Fed chairman, did in predicting the housing market crash and recession we're in now. Let's go to the videotape !
In Bernanke's defense, except for housing, energy, the automobile industry, the stock market, the economy, the coming recession, jobs, and just about everything else, Bernake NAILED it from 2005-2007. Also, once we were up to our necks in the recession, Bernanke DID recognize it. He's the expert leading the Fed now, so, no worries. What could possibly go wrong ?
{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }
1) Bush didn't "swat" KSM…he ordered him to be tortured.
2) Our own CIA report, much to neo-con chagrin, concluded that Iran had no active nuclear weapons program. Did the CIA lie?
3) Standing U.N resolutions call for the cessation of Israeli land grabs. The Israeli lobby in the U.S. will not allow any mention of ending Jewish land thefts of Palestinian lands….without a punishing public relations campaign against the person who dare mention it.
4) For 4 straight months corporate media have been entertaining Republican criticisms of Obama's presidency complete with nightly nutbag rages by Mr. Limbaugh. Conservative talkers dominate nightly cable and Sunday network "news" programs.
All that effort to tear down Obama, eventually, will pay dividends.
Not included in King's latest polling analysis is the fact that Republican approval dropped even more to 25%. So there's that.
The only time Bush had good poll numbers was when after the 9th PDB on Bin Laden he stayed in Texass for another 2 weeks and we got hit. Then the super patriots found him suddenly awesome.
I'm not concerned about Bush's poll numbers. I mean, he's not our president right now, so do his poll numbers from 8 or 9 years ago mean anything today? That's not… a good point to be trying to make, Scout. It's not very relevant, and it makes you look weak, like you disagree with what's being said, but you can't verbalize why. Do you even know, or do you just know that you should and are speaking out because of that? Come back when you have an argument for us.
BTW, Chip, if you don't know what the word metaphor means, perhaps now would be a good time to look at a dictionary. Since I doubt you own one, you can find one at your local library or on http://www.dictionary.com. I'm still not sure that what happened to KSM qualifies as torture, especially when you look at the context of events, but I guess you want to forget about that. You think the people who lost loved ones in the WTC feel the same way, or do you think they would have taken a bull whip to him until he stopped breathing?
You're doing exactly what Scout is doing. You're bringing in things that don't really have any relevance to what is being discussed hear and are behaving as if they make for a strong argument. They don't. Come back when you have something relevant for us, ok?
Oops… 'hear' should be 'here' in paragraph 3. Maybe I should start proofreading *before* hitting the Submit Comment button, lol?
from King's story………"The percentage of Jewish Israelis who see the Obama administration as being pro-Israel has declined from 31% to 6% since May 17 according to a JPost/Smith poll published in Friday's editions."
Let's think about this and about our little foray into Iraq……..
4315 American lives and counting
31,354 American wounded and counting
10's of thousands of dead Iraqis
$680,000,000,000 so far
WMD……bogus
chemical weapons…..bogus
ties to al quada…..bogus
biggest pushers for this waste……a bunch of Israel firster neocons whose stated agenda was to provide for Israel.
I, and I am sure many Americans believe, that it is now time to reexamine our relationship with Israel and start putting what is best for America first
tory sez….."I'm still not sure that what happened to KSM qualifies as torture, especially when you look at the context of events….."
in what context is torture not torture?
Is killing someone murder when they're about to kill you? In that context, walt.
Huh?
how about I rephrase my question for you…….in what context is torture not torture?
from King's story…."The whole Iranian nation are united… on (the) inalienable right of (having a) nuclear weapon," the envoy to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency said."
I would think the question would be why the whole Iranian nation is united on the right of having a nuclear weapon……could it be because of the deterent of mutual destruction if attacked by one of it's neighbors who had a nuclear weapon.
Wasn't that the reason given for the nuclear arms buildup by both Russia and the USA?
I think it's well established that WMD were foolishly used to grease the wheels in the buildup to the Iraqi war but if one assumes the invasion was meant to change the political dynamics in the ME and plant democracy there–as Bush clearly indicated in his most famous speech–recent events in Iran suggest the war might be turning out to have been a succesful endeavor after all.
Four thousand troops is a lot of life to lose but if we've lessened the number of major terrorist attacks in the world, which seems to be the case these last few years, the war might be seen as one of our most efficient in coming decades.
Cut that whole cloth out, larry.
Perhaps you could parse the Ayatollah's speech yesterday and find those jewels of new democracy, huh? What I heard was Bushian, "more of the same", authoritarianism.
Those who have actual experience and knowledge about world "terrorist" threats say that we are now less safe than before Bushdom. But, hell, what would experts know?
And tell me…..which country died and declared America to be god of all countries? "Most efficient", used to illustrate the preventable deaths of 4300 U.S. soldiers is a tad disgusting.
Maybe you can tell the victim's families how "efficient" their loved ones death was.
And this….
"if one assumes the invasion was meant to change the political dynamics in the ME and plant democracy there–as Bush clearly indicated in his most famous speech"
…is horsesh*t. And you know it. The invasion was "meant" to disarm an arms-less Hussein who was about to hand out his arms-less arms, wholesale, to his closest and bestest collaborating buddies, al-Qaida, so they could, in 45 minutes, turn the U.S. into a big mushroom cloud. Remember…the fraud-up was televised.
Of course, the genuine reason, the PNAC-inspired reason of imperialistic pre-emption, positioning our military in the ME in order to control the world for America in the 21st century…..had little, if anything, to do with the spread of democracy.
If THAT reason had been presented to Congress, you know, the real reason….then Congress would never have approved the resolution.
You're just as bad at recounting history as you are at analyzing current events, Reverend. Bush plainly stated his goals in that famous speech and I shouldn't have even wrote "assumes."
As far as the Ayatollah's speech yesterday, things seem far from settled over there to me. He'll crack down and probably it will take another generation, but then again maybe not.
And as far as the soldier's families, I'd think calling their lost loved ones "victims" and implying they died in vain is pretty offensive to many of them. Self awareness isn't a strength, is it?
larry…..what's really kept Americans safer is keeping people carrying sharp objects off airplanes.
Walter, was that keeping those people off planes with sharp objects in their pockets something that Obama's people did? I thought that came before he showed up in his "ain't he some speaker" speech in 2004.
Naw, I don't think that was his thing at all.
King, you really set the left off with this entry but for some reason they managed to talk so much more about Bush than Obama and his tax evaders. I wonder if they will ever be able to get the point about those criminals he keeps appointing.
Better yet, they don't want to admit why Israelis have finally admitted that Obama sure doesn't like them at all. That is a severe drop in liking him but then the lefties always get back to Bush polls. Do you think they know that Bush has been out of office for 5 months tomorrow? I wonder about that.
Just finally getting back to this… I think your question may be serious, you may be trying to tick me off. I don't care, lol, but I'll answer your question again, trying to clarify it a bit more…
I think that many people, our president included, are forgetting that prisoners of war are, in fact, prisoners of war. Sometimes, they have been trying to allow people who are not citizens of our country and who were not arrested in our country the rights afforded by our constitution. That is the equivalent to demanding that Amanda Knox be tried according to US law, instead of Italian law, even though the crime she's on trial for was committed in Italy. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
I'm not sure that something that I would normally regard as torture is actually torture in the scenario of our government trying to save American lives. I'm using a metaphor, here, so go look it up if you don't know what that means. If someone were to kidnap one of my children, and I was relatively sure that they meant to kill her, if I found that person before she was killed, I would use whatever means I had at my disposal to save my daughter's life. Waterboarding is downright humane compared to what I would be willing to do for my children's safety. And I feel like that was the motivation behind waterboarding, a deep fear that more of us were going to be killed. I look at it as an effort to protect Americans, one that, at the time, those in power thought was within the guidelines of the Geneva Convention.
I was watching TV live when the 2nd plane crashed into the WTC. And I remember thinking that the only thing wrong that any of those folks did was to be Americans or to be working for Americans. It was an extreme act of warfare against you and me, not just something that happened to someone on the other side of the country. It could have been any of us. Here's a list of the businesses that were attacked.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html
How many of us work at one of these types of businesses? That is what put fear into the hearts of our leaders, and I'm not sure I can be all that judgmental about their decisions when I consider what I'd be willing to do to protect my two children.
tory….there are no prisoners of war
tory sez….."That is the equivalent to demanding that Amanda Knox be tried according to US law, instead of Italian law, even though the crime she's on trial for was committed in Italy. Doesn't make much sense, does it?" I agree. The World Trade Centers were located in the USA. OBL's crimes were committed in the USA. He should stand trial in the USA.
your metaphore = everybody elses strawman
tory….let's get real…..waterboarding is torture…..admit it, you're just willing to torture
Walter under the same circumstances if you were a leader and in responsible for the safety of millions, you would waterboard your enemy also. especially if they were cutting the heads off of your friends or killing your innocent family members and children.
average joe…..then you agree, waterboarding is torture
Nope, enhanced interrogation technique. It is a scare tactic.
Walt – Seriously, don't you guys get it?
Roy,
Yeah, the whole thread went off topic, but that's okay. They always do. When the Reverend starts spinning, that's what happens.
Speaking of the Reverend, if we didn't go to Iraq to spread democracy, I wonder why Bush put the goal of bringing democracy to Iraq in his AUMF speech, and I also wonder why there is a democracy in Iraq now. Must've been a coincidence.
Rev,
Thanks for exhibiting that liberal sympathy for KSM. I knew you would. You proved my point. I appreciate it.
Rev asks, "Our own CIA report, much to neo-con chagrin, concluded that Iran had no active nuclear weapons program. Did the CIA lie?"
This has nothing to do with what I wrote, but are you saying you really believe that Iran is only interested in nuclear energy ? If so, I'm glad you aren't running our government, and I have a bridge to sell you.
Here's a dishonest statement from the Rev – "The invasion was "meant" to disarm an arms-less Hussein who was about to hand out his arms-less arms, wholesale, to his closest and bestest collaborating buddies, al-Qaida, so they could, in 45 minutes, turn the U.S. into a big mushroom cloud. Remember…the fraud-up was televised."
If the Rev remembers the actual words that Bush spoke, he said he DIDN'T KNOW the extent of Saddam's wmd, but that the final proof could end up as a mushroom cloud. That's what happens when Saddam violates the terms of his Gulf War surrender and misleads the UN weapons inspectors for over a decade. That's what happens when Saddam violates 14 UN resolutions against him following the Gulf War. The Reverend is actually attempting to portray Saddam as the put-upon good guy in this scenario. Incredible.
And Rev, I'm STILL waiting for you to explain to me how it was all just Bush lying about wmd, when the Clinton administration believed the exact same thing about Saddam's wmd, and the CIA believed the exact same thing about Saddam's wmd, and other world intelligence agencies believed the exact same thing about Saddam's wmd, and Saddam's own generals thought he had wmd. I've been waiting for you to answer that question for about 5 years now, and you've never given me a straight answer once.
Rev asks, "Perhaps you could parse the Ayatollah's speech yesterday and find those jewels of new democracy?"
Say what ? Nobody ever said the Ayatollah's were for democracy. That's the whole point of what's going on there. It's the Iranian people who are rising up, or maybe you don't own a television.
King sez…."And Rev, I'm STILL waiting for you to explain to me how it was all just Bush lying about wmd, when the Clinton administration believed the exact same thing about Saddam's wmd….."
I can't really believe that people still use that tired old argument
It really didn't matter what Clinton or the CIA said……the UN weapon inspectors were in Iraq and were getting access to inspect those sites.
average…….this from Sen John McCain…….."Republican presidential candidate John McCain reminded people Thursday that some Japanese were tried and hanged for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding.
"There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn't have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans," McCain said during a news conference.
He said he forgot to mention that piece of history during Wednesday night's Republican debate, during which he criticized former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney after Romney declined to publicly say what interrogation techniques he would rule out.
"I would also hope that he would not want to be associated with a technique which was invented in the Spanish Inquisition, was used by Pol Pot in one of the great eras of genocide in history and is being used on Burmese monks as we speak," the Arizona senator said. "America is a better nation than that."
America is a better nation than that……..appearently not according to average joe
I guess waterboarding is a war crime only when used AGAINST an American
Walter says, " It really didn't matter what Clinton or the CIA said……the UN weapon inspectors were in Iraq and were getting access to inspect those sites."
Access to the sites ? What sites ? I thought there weren't any wmd. And you think that after being misled for 11 years, and being kicked out of Iraq, the UN inspectors were FINALLY getting access to the weapons sites ? Yeah, sure. Saddam was such an honest and upright fellow.
And since when does it not matter what the CIA and the previous administration said about wmd ? In 2002, most of the intel came from those sources. Maybe you believe in the liberal magic theory – that Saddam had wmd up until January 2001, when Bush was inaugurated. Then they all magically disappeared.
btw, saying that those Japanese were executed for waterboarding during WWII is like saying that Ted Bundy was executed for faking an arm injury. The Japanese leaders were executed for waging war.
You also might want to look up the difference between the waterboarding we did and the Japanese water cure. They are not the same thing.
King sez…."Access to the sites ? What sites ? I thought there weren't any wmd. And you think that after being misled for 11 years, and being kicked out of Iraq, the UN inspectors were FINALLY getting access to the weapons sites ? Yeah, sure."
What sites? Sites suspected of storing and manufacturing of wmd.
Finally getting access to weapons sites? Sure. What do you think the purpose of the AUMF was about. To show the Iraqis we meant business. The AUMF, even tho illegal and unconstitutional, wasn't that bad of an idea. Giving it to Bush and his Israel firster neocon buddies was a real bad idea
Again, no matter who said what when, the UN weapons inspectors were there and checking those claims out. How much simpler could it be?
Using the American military to enforce UN resolutions WITHOUT UN approval? Now that's insane. No, that's a war crime.
The only difference between the waterboarding done by the Japenese and the CIA is the Japanese used it on Americans
Walter, since you have the water boarding listed as torture maybe you could offer some intel about what the Japanese used their torture to learn. So many more torturous things they did were done merely to injure and make those not beaten fearful of their guards. I have in mind some of the 1 x 4 board beatings that they used on even, at least one American general.
Walter I will bet that you would have wanted to try an American soldier for shooting a Japanese soldier that had been seen torturing an American. I am afraid that you and Rev Red are just wanting to get even with Bush for prosecuting what eventually became a very successful war. Your arguments make sense, especially to other liberals.
roybot sez…….."Walter I will bet that you would have wanted to try an American soldier for shooting a Japanese soldier that had been seen torturing an American."
If the American soilder had come upon the torture session and shot the Japanese soldier, I would have no problems with that. If the American had gone to the jail where the Japanese soldier was being held for trial and shot him in his cell, yes, I would have a problem with that.
walter asks, "What do you think the purpose of the AUMF was about ?"
Well, let's see. Since it was called the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq, I'm going to go out on a limb and say…..it authorized Bush to use military force in Iraq. I know liberals see it differently. They think it meant Bush was NOT to use military force, but then, that's what makes them liberals. They're liars and/or idiots.
And I see you didn't take my advice to read up on the Japanese water cure. So be it. Ignorance is bliss.
walter also asks, "Again, no matter who said what when, the UN weapons inspectors were there and checking those claims out. How much simpler could it be?"
And again, I thought I already covered this. The weapons inspectors were there for ALMOST 11 YEARS, Saddam misled them every step of the way, and Saddam violated 14 UN resolutions regarding his post-Gulf war conduct. You are taking the position that 'this time it would have been different.' There is no reason to hold that belief, other than a partisan one. Your theory was already disproven by the history. There was nothing simple about the UN weapons inspectors doing their job. Ever.
the AUMF was for if Saddam did not comply with the weapons inspections. He was complying. That's a fact.
Everything else you say is just republican misinformation……just like the Walpin story.
when it comes to spreading republican misinformation they can certainly count on you.
Mr. King,
Wrong again. After the first Gulf War, a concerted effort was made to defang Sadaam Hussein by destroying his military. Weapons inspectors searched from 91-98 and were withdrawn in the face of Sadaam's intransigience. With their withdrawal, came a four day bombing campaign against suspected sites. Four years later, the inspectors returned and reported cooperation between Iraq's government and their teams. They were withdrawn, for their safety, having found nothing, on the eve of the invasion.
walter,
Good luck trying to convince anyone of anything here at the Blog of Cognitive Dissonance. You can show how Cheney and Rumsfeld staffed the Defense and State Departments with their PNAC cadre, that PNAC's goal of global hegemony began with the invasion of Iraq, and that they envisioned Iraq as the place to base our troops for rapid deployment throughout the Middle East with enough oil to challenge the OPEC oligarchy. You can show that they ignored warnings about Al-Qaeda from the Clinton administration, with their first National Security meeting being about Iraq instead. You can report on Rumsfeld's eagerness to blame 9/11 on Iraq, despite being told that they had nothing to do with it. You can even point out that Rumsfeld set up the Office of Special Plans within the Defense Dept specifically to hype the Iraqi threat.
You can show how the idea that Iraq, after 12 years of crippling sanctions, with its imports and exports strictly controlled, 12 years of being the most heavily surveilled country on the planet, could have developed weapons that put us at such imminent risk that it required redeployment of troops who were closing in on bin Laden, is ridiculous.
You can show that, at best, the administration's use of intelligence was to find support for preexisting conclusions as opposed to drawing objective conclusions through solid information. You can trot out the charlatans whose "information" they cited from the drunken "Curveball" to Chalabi. You can report that the source of their fear of an Iraqi nuclear program was a document so poorly counterfeited that the "signatures" were the wrong names. You can even demonstrate that torture was used rather extensively not to elicit usable information, but to provide a fig leaf for naked aggression.
But you will never be able to convince them that it was anything but a noble mistake by people trying to protect our country. Nothing illegal. Nothing wrong with the government rescinding a majority of the Bill of Rights. Because many who post on this blog have been had. The Bush people were good. They convinced over 70% that there was a direct link between 9/11 and Iraq. People are also scared. They have good reason to be.
walter,
Sometimes, so much partisan crapola is slung about that the original facts are obliterated. That's what has happened here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have merely been misled. You need to read the actual AUMF, which in addtion to the obvious intent of it's title, says, and I quote "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate".
http://www.c-span.org/Content/PDF/hjres114.pdf
The misinformation is yours.
frank,
I was against the Iraq War, but that doesn't mean I'm going to accept false facts, such as the idea that the AUMF didn't give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. It most certainly did.
Other facts you cannot ignore in spite of all your attempts to discredit the Bush administration are….the NIE presented by the CIA to Congress said those wmd were there. So did CIA chief George Tenet, who called it a "slam dunk." Many other foreign intelligence agencies agreed. You act like Bush just made it all up out of thin air. That's where you run off the rails. Your bias is showing. I think you should read the AUMF I linked walter to as well.
like I said before……the AUMF was sold as an idea to bolster the UN weapons inspectors and to force compliance by the Iraqis. The AUMF worked because the Iraqis were complying and cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors.
The fact that the Iraqis WERE cooperating and were in complience with the UN weapons inspectors makes the argument that this guy said this and that guy said that moot. It truly is a meaningless argument.
I bet if you live to be 458 years old you'll never see another AUMF. The AUMF was a tragedy ONLY because of Bush/Cheney/Boehner .
As far as the terms of the AUMF…..that's like if frank had a gun and he used it to rob a liquior store…..is that a legitimate use for a gun?
Only a criminal would say yes.
Mr. King,
If you think that the CIA under Tenet and with regular visits was an objective player in this fiasco, you are pretty naive. Bush didn't make it up out of thin air, but Cheney did. Bush was the useful idiot. Cheney and Rumsfeld pretty much controlled what was disclosed to Bush and Congress and the media. And it may come as a surprise, but some of our allies do try to curry favor through compliance with our government's desires.
But if you can still cling to the notion that there was the slightest bit of honesty or legitimacy that led us into Iraq, you have my sympathy.
Excellent article, I enjoy every article I read here. Thanks,
and keep bloggin!
walter,
Sooo, I take it you didn't read the AUMF I linked you to.
And you also called Congress, the Bush admin, and the Clinton admin criminals. Your choice.
Clinton had a AUMF? That's news to me.
Sooooo, I take it that you believe that if a holder of a ccw permit uses his gun to rob a liquior store and kill a clerk it's legal.
wtf, you think the AUMF authorized Bush to commit war crimes? Even tho Bush had the AUMF he still had to follow the law……period.
certainly the AUMF was illegal and unconstitutional. Congress certainly was derelict in approving the AUMF. Giving it to a physcopathic idiot like Bush/Cheney/Boehner and the neocons was criminal.