French Horn

"You know what I've heard about Shepard Smith... Shep Smith? Queer as a French Horn..."
--Rob Cordry, Daily Show.

A.G. T

NYT:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4 - Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, intervened directly with Justice Department lawyers in 2002 to obtain a legal ruling on the extent of the president's authority to permit extreme interrogation practices in the name of national security, current and former administration officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Gonzales's role in seeking a legal opinion on the definition of torture and the legal limits on the force that could be used on terrorist suspects in captivity is expected to be a central issue in the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings scheduled to begin on Thursday on Mr. Gonzales's nomination to be attorney general.

The request by Mr. Gonzales produced the much-debated Justice Department memorandum of Aug. 1, 2002, which defined torture narrowly and said that Mr. Bush could circumvent domestic and international prohibitions against torture in the name of national security.

Until now, administration officials have been unwilling to provide details about the role Mr. Gonzales had in the production of the memorandum by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Mr. Gonzales has spoken of the memorandum as a response to questions, without saying that most of the questions were his.

Current and former officials who talked about the memorandum have been provided with firsthand accounts about how it was prepared. Some discussed it in an effort to clear up what they viewed as a murky record in advance of Mr. Gonzales's confirmation hearings. Others spoke of the matter apparently believing that the Justice Department had unfairly taken the blame for the memorandum.

Innumeracy

If our press can't even get the simplest goddamn things right, we're doomed.

WASHINGTON Jan 4, 2005 — The Bush administration is focusing on a Social Security proposal that would allow younger workers to invest up to 4 percent of their payroll taxes in private accounts, with contributions limited to about $1,000 to $1,300 a year, an official said Tuesday.

4 PERCENTAGE POINTS. NOT 4 PERCENT.

argh

Evening Thread

Chat away.

Wow. More Lies.

On the floor of the Senate. Today. It's just unbelievable. I don't know what we'll tell the children.

the oath was a simple phrase. i do solemnly affirm i will support the constitution of the united states. those same 14 words form the vital core of today's oath. the oath that 34 senators, now, three hours ago. they bind us. in all who have served in this body before us, many of whom joined us today, to a common, a timeless and a paramount cause. and so our first responsibility above all else is to do our constitutional duty.

nothing should come before it. nothing should stand between it. not party, not ideology, and certainly not politics. and yet in the last congress, i believe the senate failed to perform in an essential constitutional duty. it failed to offer advice and consent to the president by filibustering ten judicial nominees and threatening to filibuster another six. these filibusters were unprecedented. never in the history of the senate has a minority filibustered a judicial nominee that had clear majority support. this was an abrupt and an unfortunate break in more than 200 years of senate tradition, of senate history. this tradition must be restored, not merely because we honor the traditions of the senate, but because this tradition reflects the proper role for this body, the senate, as designed by our framers in the constitutional arrangement. next month we'll have the opportunity to restore senate tradition. i'll bring one of the president's very capable, qualified, and scperd [??] judicial nominees to the floor. we can debate that nomination. we can vote to support it or to oppose it. and we must offer the president advice and consent by giving this and future judicial nominees who are brought to the floor up-or-down votes. some, i know, have suggested that the filibusters of the last congress are reason enough to offer a procedural change today right here and right now. but at this moment, i do not choose that path. my democratic colleagues have new leadership, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, i want to extend my hand across the aisle. i have a sincere hope that we can move forward past difficulties, beyond the past difficulties we saw in the last congress, and look forward to a future of cooperation. i seek cooperation not confrontation. cooperation does not require support for the nominees.


cooperation simply means voting judicial nominees brought to the floor up or down. so let me say this: if my democratic colleagues exercise self-restraint and don't filibuster judicial nominees, senate traditions will be restored. it will then be unnecessary to change senate procedures. self-restraint on the use of the filibuster for nominations, the very same self-restraint that senate minorities exercised for more than two centuries will alleviate the need for any action. but if my democratic colleagues continue to filibuster judicial nominees, the senate will face this choice. fail to do its constitutional duty or reform itself and restore its traditions and do what the framers intended. right now we cannot be certain judicial filibusters will cease, so i reserve the right to propose

changes to senate rule 22 and do noting awee dwroas carryingover[???] all the rules from the last congress. as a public servant who has twice taken an oath to support the constitution, i cannot stand idly by, nor should any of us, if the senate fails to do its constitutional duty.

I don't know what it is about that guy. He just can't stop lying. Maybe he needs help or something.


[uncapped to make easier on the eyes. Sorry, it's how I got the transcript, including errors]

Frist - Big Fat Liar

Oh My. What will we tell the children? This is just shocking, really. And the man's a doctor too. Disgracing both the venerable medical profession and the United States Senate. It's too horrible to even comprehend.

From CAP:

Documents obtained by American Progress show Frist participated in an effort to block one of Bill Clinton's judicial nominees via filibuster, then lied about it.

In recent weeks, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has been relentlessly preaching about the evils of judicial filibusters. Speaking to the Federalist Society on November 12, Frist said filibustering judicial nominees is "radical. It is dangerous and it must be overcome."[1] Frist called judicial filibusters "nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority." When Bill Clinton was President, however, Frist engaged in the same behavior he is now condemning.

In 1996 Clinton nominated Judge Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. Conservatives in Congress held up Paez's nomination for more than four years, culminating in an attempted filibuster on March 8, 2000. Bill Frist was among those who voted to filibuster Paez.[2]

Frist was directly confronted with this vote by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation (11/21/04). Schieffer said "Senator, a group called The American Progress Action Fund sent me a question to ask you. And here's what it says: ‘Senator Frist, if you oppose the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations, why did you vote to filibuster Judge Richard Paez when President Clinton nominated him to the 9th Circuit?'"[3] Frist replied "Filibuster, cloture, it gets confusing--as a scheduling or to get more information is legitimate. But no to kill nominees."

But American Progress has obtained a document that proves Frist was not, as he suggested, voting to filibuster Paez for scheduling purposes or to get more information. He voted to filibuster Paez for the very reason he said was illegitimate – to block Paez's nomination indefinitely.

On March 9, 2000, Former Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) issued a press release describing the intent of the Paez filibuster vote the day before. The release says Senator Smith "built a coalition of several moderate and conservative Senators in an effort to block" Paez's nomination.[4] Frist was a part of that coalition. Smith did not organize the filibuster to get more information on Paez (after all his nomination had been pending for four years). He organized the filibuster because he had already decided Paez was "out of the mainstream of political though and...should [not] be on the court" [Click here to read Smith's press release].

You can read the horrible document here.

Model 2

Max points out just how shitty Little Nell can expect to do under what appears to be the Bush plan, though of course we don't really have a plan.

I'm not sure how to square the numbers rattled off by the Post reporters with the CBO predictions. Of course, as long as we don't have an actual plan, but just a bunch of smoke blown up gullible reporters asses, it's hard to discuss the details.

So, perhaps we shouldn't fall into the trap of doing so. The social security "crisis" is about as real as the WMD "crisis," though I suppose when seniors are impoverished we can similarly claim that it was a humanitarian mission.

Bullshit

I don't have the time this second to go into the full history of Judith Fucking "The Queen of All Iraq" Miller, but Seth Mnookin's comment to Sam Rosenfeld in his interview is just bullshit:

Whenever Judith Miller’s name comes up, too often the nuance is lost that there was never any point at which Judith thought she was doing anything but bringing good reporting to the paper. She wasn’t, obviously. But that was not because she was trying to perpetrate a fraud or advance some agenda or because she was hoping to get a position in the [Ahmed] Chalabi cabinet or whatever. In discussing her reporting, and obviously there’s a lot to discuss, I just think it’s so crucial to remember that distinction.

What a load of crap. Here's the normally useless Kurtz with a Judith Miller flashback:

On April 21, when the MET Alpha team was ordered to withdraw to the southern Iraqi town of Talil, Miller objected in a handwritten note to two public affairs officers. It said:

"I see no reason for me to waste time (or MET Alpha, for that matter) in Talil. . . . Request permission to stay on here with colleagues at the Palestine Hotel til MET Alpha returns or order to return is rescinded. I intend to write about this decision in the NY Times to send a successful team back home just as progress on WMD is being made."

One military officer, who says that Miller sometimes "intimidated" Army soldiers by invoking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or Undersecretary Douglas Feith, was sharply critical of the note. "Essentially, she threatened them," the officer said, describing the threat as that "she would publish a negative story."

An Army officer, who regarded Miller's presence as "detrimental," said: "Judith was always issuing threats of either going to the New York Times or to the secretary of defense. There was nothing veiled about that threat," this person said, and MET Alpha "was allowed to bend the rules."

Times editor Rosenthal strongly disagreed, saying Miller's note sounded routine and that characterizing it as a threat is "a total distortion of that letter."

Miller later challenged the pullback order with Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne. While Petraeus did not have direct authority over Col. Richard McPhee, the commander of the 75th task force, McPhee rescinded his withdrawal order after Petraeus advised him to do so. McPhee declined two requests for comment.

"Our desire was to pull these guys back in," said an officer who served under McPhee, adding that it was "quite a surprise" that the order was reversed.

As for MET Alpha's seeming independence, this officer said: "The way McPhee phrased it for [staff] consumption was, 'I know they have gone independent, I know they have gone rogue, but by God at least they're doing something.' But if they're doing something, where's the meat? It didn't pan out."

That wasn't for lack of trying. In early May, Miller reported on MET Alpha's search for an ancient Jewish text that wound up unearthing Iraqi intelligence documents and maps related to Israel. In this case, too, Sethna said, the information was passed from Chalabi's group to Miller. "We thought this was a great story for the New York Times," Sethna said. "She discussed it with her team. . . . That came from us."

Asked if MET Alpha had gone astray, Col. Joe Curtin, an Army spokesman, said that "commanders make decisions based on developing situations" and that the unit had the approval of its headquarters. He said that any lead provided by a reporter is deemed "open source, and we're going to use it."

But Curtin said of one MET Alpha foray: "Interrogating prisoners is usually left to military intelligence people who are trained in that art and do it right, under the laws of land warfare."

Miller formed a friendship with MET Alpha's leader, Chief Warrant Officer Gonzales, and several officers said they were surprised when she participated in a Baghdad ceremony in which Gonzales was promoted. She pinned the rank to his uniform, an eyewitness said, and Gonzales thanked Miller for her contributions. Gonzales did not respond to a request for comment.

...

Miller's coverage of MET Alpha has drawn some critical press scrutiny for optimistic-sounding stories about the weapons hunt, generating headlines including "U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs to Germ Arms," "U.S. Experts Find Radioactive Material in Iraq" and "U.S.-Led Forces Occupy Baghdad Complex Filled With Chemical Agents." These potential discoveries did not bear fruit.

At the very least Judy's agenda was... promoting Judy. And, as a one-time listed Expert at the Middle East Forum, her agenda was likely quite a bit bigger than that.

Afternoon Thread

Chat away.

Never Forget

For some reason some of you still like to hold on to the notion that Sullivan is in fact a reasonable person. Let's remember what he published on September 16, 2001, and what he considers to be one of his "greatest hits."

The terrorists have done the rest. The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for Bush - is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.

Actually, that isn't what he published on September 16, 2001, despite what it says at the bottom of the page. What he actually published, but has now edited though it remains in Nexis's archive, was this:

The terrorists have done the rest. The middle part of the country -the great red zone that voted for Bush -is clearly ready for war. The decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead -and may well mount a fifth column.

And, two days later he wrote:

But we might as well be aware of the enemy within the West itself - a paralyzing, pseudo-clever, morally nihilist fifth column that will surely ramp up its hatred in the days and months ahead.

Sullivan was one of the earliest adopters of the idea that the most appropriate response to September 11 was to figure how to to use it to pit American against American.

Sociopath of the Day

Andrew Sullivan:

QUOTE FOR THE DAY I: "I'd much rather be doing this than figthing a war," - helicopter pilot Lt. Cmdr. William Whitsitt, helping the survivors of the south Asian tsunami. Earth to Whitsitt: you're a soldier.

Earth to Sully: A rather large point of our massive Defense machine is its massive deterrent effect, along with the idea that we use it when we have to. We train our soldiers with the hope that they don't have to go to war, not so they make you feel big and powerful as you cheer them on to their deaths. It shouldn't shock you that a soldier would rather be helping people than killing them, even if he's willing to do the latter when necessary.

Another one of Sully's Deep Thoughts on the military:

i'm sorry but i pay for those soldiers to fight in a volunteer army. they are servants of people like me who will never fight. yes, servants of civil masters. and they will do what they are told by people who would never go to war. that's called a democracy.

Sully's thoughts on his recent experience in Iraq:

I'm still glad we fought it.

Morning Thread

Chat away.

Journalist Alert

So you don't get exposed as an idiot in the coming weeks, let me give you a bit of information. It isn't just the initial level of Social Security benefits upon retirement which are determined by the wage index. The wage index is also what determines the income cap which sets the maximum income level upon which SS taxes are levied.

Cutting the rise in benefits without cutting the rise in the income cap is just another way to tax people of moderate incomes to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Bobo's World

Bobo:

Human beings have always told stories to explain deluges such as this. Most cultures have deep at their core a flood myth in which the great bulk of humanity is destroyed and a few are left to repopulate and repurify the human race. In most of these stories, God is meting out retribution, punishing those who have strayed from his path. The flood starts a new history, which will be on a higher plane than the old.

Nowadays we find these kinds of explanations repugnant. It is repugnant to imply that the people who suffer from natural disasters somehow deserve their fate. And yet for all the callousness of those tales, they did at least put human beings at the center of history.

In those old flood myths, things happened because human beings behaved in certain ways; their morality was tied to their destiny. Stories of a wrathful God implied that at least there was an active God, who had some plan for the human race. At the end of the tribulations there would be salvation.

Shorter Bobo, courtesy of Fred Phelps:

Thank God for 3,000 Dead Americans!

No Sex With Pages After All?

Weird.

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republicans suddenly reversed course Monday, deciding to retain a tough standard for lawmaker discipline and reinstating a rule that would force Majority Leader Tom DeLay to step aside if indicted by a Texas grand jury.

The surprise dual decisions were made by Speaker Dennis Hastert and by DeLay - who asked GOP colleagues to undo the extreme act of loyalty they handed him in November. Then, Republicans changed a party rule, so DeLay could have retained his leadership post if indicted by the grand jury in Austin that charged three of the Texas Republican's associates.

When Republicans began their closed-door meeting Monday night, leaders were considering a rules change that would have made it tougher to rebuke a House member for misconduct. The proposal would have required a more specific finding of ethical violations than is now required.

Republicans gave no indication before the meeting that the indictment rule would be changed. Even more surprising was DeLay's decision to make the proposal himself.

Republican Ethics Repeal Act of 2005

Here's what DeLay's goons are planning for tomorrow.

WASHINGTON -- January 3 -- Today, a non-partisan coalition of eight government watchdog groups condemned a new set of proposals under consideration by House Republican leaders that dramatically weakening House ethics rules. The proposed changes, which are scheduled for consideration this week – the opening week of the new Congress – reportedly include:

Dropping a key standard for ethics violations. Currently, it is a violation of House ethics rules to act in such a way that creates the appearance of corruption. The new proposal would eliminate that ethics standard and make only actual criminal behavior or illegal activity a violation of ethics rules.

Deadlocking the ability of the ethics committee to investigate complaints. If the bipartisan House ethics committee ties along party lines whether to conduct an investigation, a complaint automatically triggers an investigation within 45 days. The new proposal would require a majority vote to initiate any investigation.

Punishing members of the ethics committee who scolded Rep. Tom DeLay for ethics transgressions. A few months ago, the bipartisan House ethics committee unanimously voted to admonish Majority leader DeLay for offering his endorsement to a colleague’s son in exchange for a floor vote, for appearing to link campaign donations with legislation, and for diverting Federal Aviation Administration resources to chase after legislators over a partisan squabble. Rep. Joel Hefley, the Republican chair of the ethics committee, and perhaps other Republican members of the committee who voted for the admonishment, are now facing a drive to remove them from the committee.

So, what has the key ethics rule been used for? The WaPo explains:

It has been used to discipline members for taking bribes, fixing parking tickets and having sex with House pages.

So, the House Republicans support a rule change which will let them:

*Take bribes!

*Fix parking tickets!

*Have sex with House pages!

Open Thread

Chat away.

Happy Birthday National Review!

My. Has it been 50 years already? Time sure does fly. K. Lo promises a lovely trip through the archives for a celebration. I thought I might help get things started. Just in case they miss a few things. My birthday gift to them. From 1957 unsigned National Review piece, "Why The South Must Prevail." (warning -- serious cooties at link).

The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

That National Review! So ahead of it's time! Sticking up for minority rights, even in 1957. Well, white minority rights anyway, but let's not nitpick! It's a birthday celebration after all.

Bobo's World

Oops:

Skeptics have called it the ``Miracle Study'' -- findings by scientists that simple prayers could dramatically boost fertility in women.

Published in a respected medical journal by a Capitola researcher, a department head at Columbia University and a Korean scientist also based at Columbia, it immediately attracted the attention of the news media, religious groups and couples desperately trying to conceive.

``Women who were prayed for became pregnant twice as often as those who did not have people praying for them,'' trumpeted the New York Times in 2001. Other media, including the Mercury News, picked up the story.

But now, three years after the study first suggested that a higher power could influence pregnancy rates, critics are calling it all a sham, a black eye to the research community and proof that medical studies aren't always what they appear to be.

Many in the medical field are saying that the only miracle about the study is that it was published to begin with. They wonder if the research was ever conducted at all.

As the controversy rages, the Bay Area researcher is en route to a California prison camp on an unrelated fraud conviction. The second scientist recently took his name off the study. The third quietly left Columbia. The government conducted its own investigation and determined the study violated federal research guidelines.

Howler

Somerby comments on the Grey Lady's anti-internet jihad. He concludes:

Gail Collins produces a superb editorial today about the unfolding Soc Sec debate. But isn’t it strange—that the information included here can only be found in a Times editorial? The Times is quick to challenge silly misstatements when they’re made by anonymous shlubs on the Net. But it’s weird! The paper seems a bit slow to respond when the crackpot misstatements come from the White House! When that happens, fellows like Schwartz get very quiet. You have to turn to editorials if you want to receive basic facts.

yep. And, it is rather odd that Schwartz didn't mention the blog of their star reporter.