The following timeline is based on the Unclassified Report on the President’s Surveillance Program, written by the Inspectors General of several agencies, published on July 10, 2009.
PRESIDENTIAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM - A TIMELINE
1978 - The FISA law is enacted, permitting electronic surveillance in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes, through the FISA court. The law forbids such electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute.
September 11, 2001 - Terrorists armed with knives and boxcutters hijack four passenger aircraft, and fly three of them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Almost 3,000 people are killed.
Sept. 2001 - Soon after the attacks, Director of the CIA George Tenet, on behalf of the White House, asks NSA Director Michael Hayden whether the NSA could do more to combat terrorism. Hayden tells Tenet that nothing more can be done within his existing legal authority. When asked what he might do with more authority, Hayden proposes what becomes the basis for the President’s Surveillance Program (PSP).
Sept. 2001 - President Bush authorizes the NSA to undertake a number of new, highly classified intelligence activities. All of these activities are authorized in a single document called a “Presidential Authorization.” The programs, still classified as of 2009, involve interception of communications without a court order, a program the White House calls the “Terrorist Surveillance Program,” as well as actions known in IG report as "Other Intelligence Activities." Collectively these activities are known as the PSP.
Sept. 2001 - The Presidential Authorizations are issued at intervals of approximately every 45 days. With each reauthorization the CIA, and later the National Counterterrorism Center, prepare an assessment of current potential terrorist threats and a summary of intelligence gathered through the PSP and other means during the previous authorization period. The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) review this information every 45 days to assess whether there is "a sufficient factual basis demonstrating a threat of terrorist attacks in the United States for it to continue to be reasonable under the standards of the Fourth Amendment for the President to [continue] to authorize the warrantless searches involved" in the program. The Office of Legal Counsel then advises the Attorney General as to whether the constitutional standard of reasonableness has been met, and whether the Presidential Authorization could be certified "as to form and and legality."
Each Presidential Authorization includes a finding that an extraordinary emergency continues to exist, and that the circumstances "constitute an urgent and compelling governmental interest" justifying the activities being authorized without a court order.
Because private sector companies and individuals are asked to cooperate in the PSP, the White House feels it is important to be able to say that the Attorney General has approved the program. In addition, for "purely political considerations" the Attorney General's approval of the program is thought to have value "prospectively" in the event of Congressional or Inspector General reviews of the program.
Threat assessments relied on by the DOJ, providing the basis for the PSP, described the danger of a terrorist attack, and are sobering and "scary." The threat assessments are known as the "scary memos."
Sept. 2001 - Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, who works in the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, writes the initial legal memos supporting the concepts behind the PSP.
Sept. 2001 - U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft is told about the existence of the program. That same day, he approves Presidential Authorization of the PSP.
Sept. 2001 - Michael Hayden is told the Attorney General has personally approved the PSP as lawful.
October 2001 - John Yoo writes more legal memos supporting potential activities of the PSP.
October 25, 2001 - Unnamed White House officials and Michael Hayden brief Rep. Nancy P. Pelosi, Rep. Porter J. Goss, Sen. Robert Graham and Sen. Richard J. Shelby on aspects of the PSP. Later more briefings take place.
November 2, 2001 - John Yoo writes the first legal directly supporting the legality of the PSP. Yoo concludes that because the FISA law of 1978 did specifically state that is applies in a time of war, it does not apply to the PSP. As the IG Report notes, Yoo ignores a FISA provision allowing the interception of electronic communications without a warrant for a period of 15 days following a congressional declaration of war.
Yoo also concludes the Fourth Amendment does not apply to non-U.S. citizens, and that the government may intercept communications which cross a border. Yoo also concludes that surveillance for military purposes does not fall under the Fourth Amendment. Yoo finds that the government conduct may any surveillance which is reasonable, for example, where there is a great national interest, such as security of the nation. The IG Report notes that Yoo does not discuss the Youngstown case, instead emphasizing that the President has the constitutional power to take action to defend the nation against direct attack.
November 2001 - John Yoo is only person in the Office of Legal Counsel who knows about the PSP, and becomes the principal legal authority approving the PSP, bypassing the peer review process of the DOJ, including his own supervisor, Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, who is never told about the existence of the PSP. No one else in the OLC is aware Yoo is working with the White House on the program. He deals only with the White House and remains the principal authority until he leaves in May of 2003.
January 2002 - FISA Court Presiding Judge Royce Lamberth is told about the PSP. Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is later informed.
October 2002 - At the request of AG Ashcroft, Yoo writes another memo supporting the PSP.
May 2003 - John Yoo leaves government.
May 2003 - After Yoo leaves, another DOJ official, Patrick Philbin, is selected by the White House to be given knowledge of the PSP, and to assume Yoo's role as advisor to the Attorney General concerning the program.
August, 2003 - Philbin expresses his concern to U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft that John Yoo's OLC legal opinions might lack a proper legal foundation.
October 6, 2003 - Jack Goldsmith replaces Jay Bybee as Assistant Attorney General for the OLC. Although Bybee was never told about the PSP, Patrick Philbin persuades the Counsel to the Vice President Dick Cheney, David Addington, to inform Goldsmith about the existence of the surveillance program.
October, 2003 - Philbin tells Goldsmith about his concern that John Yoo's analysis of the legality of the PSP was incorrect, and that certain ongoing practices of the U.S. government are in violation of the law.
November, 2003 - Goldsmith and Philbin re-analyze the PSP and the FISA statute. They develop an argument that the Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (AUMF) exempted some of the activities under the PSP from FISA. Even so, Goldsmith and Philbin remain concerned that this revised analysis is still not enough to support the legality of certain actions the President authorized under the PSP.
December, 2003 - Goldsmith and Philbin met with the Counsel to the Vice President, David Addington, and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, at the White House to express their growing concerns about the legality of certain activites of the PSP. Goldsmith tells them he thinks the PSP, in its current form, is illegal. Gonzales agrees to terminate the program if it is found to be illegal.
December, 2003 - James Comey becomes Deputy Attorney General.
January, 2004 - Bush agrees to inform James Comey about the PSP.
January 2004 - Jack Goldsmith tell James Comey about his belief that PSP may be illegal. After studying the issues, Comey agrees that John Yoo's legal opinions were flawed, and that PSP may be illegal. He is particularly concerned by Yoo's opinion that the President may unilaterally, and in secret, decide to ignore an act of Congress.
Monday, March 1, 2004 - James Corney tells FBI Director Mueller that he thinks the PSP may be illegal. This is the first time Mueller has been told there are any doubts about the legality of the program.
Thursday, March 4, morning - Comey meets with U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. He tells Ashcroft about his belief that certain practices of the PSP are probably illegal. Ashcroft agrees with the opinions of Comey, Goldsmith and Philbin that the PSP is illegal.
Thursday, March 4, afternoon - Ashcroft is struck with severe gallstone pancreatitis and admitted to the The George Washington University Hospital, which is a few minutes away from the Dept. of Justice and a few blocks from the White House.
Friday, March 5, morning - Jack Goldsmith advises James Comey by memorandum that because of Ashcroft's medical condition and hospitalization, a "clear basis" exists for Comey to determine that "this is a case of 'absence or disability' of the Attorney General," allowing Comey to become Acting Attorney General of the United States. Goldsmith sends a copy of the memo to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales.
Friday, Thursday, March 5, afternoon - Gonzales calls Goldsmith, asking for a letter stating that John Yoo's opinions "covered" the PSP. Goldsmith and Philbin confirm that Gonzales only wants a letter stating that Yoo said the PSP was legal, not that, in the opinion of the DOJ, it actually was.
Friday, Thursday, March 5, evening - Goldsmith, Philbin, and Comey re-examine all of Jon Yoo's memoranda, with a view toward determining whether they adequately described the actual intelligence activities of the NSA under the Authorizations.
Goldsmith, Philbin, and Corney conclude that Yoo's memoranda did not accurately describe all of activities that were being conducted by the government under orders from President Bush, and that the Yoo's opinions therefore did not provide a basis for finding that these activities were legal.
Saturday, March 6 - With Comey's approval, Goldsmith and Philbin meet with Addington and Gonzales at the White House to convey their conclusions that certain activities in the PSP are illegal and should stop. Addington and Gonzales tell Goldsmith they will get back to them.
Sunday, March 7 - Goldsmith and Philbin met again with Addington and Gonzales at the White House. Addington and Gonzales tell Goldsmith and Philbin they disagree with their interpretation of Yoo's memoranda, that they believe the PSP is legal, and that in their opinion there do not need to be any changes to NSA surveillance under the PSP.
Tuesday, March 9, Morning - Alberto Gonzales calls Goldsmith and tries to persuade him that his criticisms of Yoo's memoranda are incorrect, and that Yoo's analysis showed the PSP is legal. Goldsmith tells him disagrees. Gonzales tells him that Presidential Authorization for the PSP expires in three days, and that Attorney General John Ashcroft must agree for it to be renewed. Gonzales is concerned that Ashcroft is too sick to sign the authorization, and the Comey will not agree to it. Gonzales asks for a "30-day bridge" to get past the deadline. Goldsmith tells Gonzales they can't do that, because the PSP is, in their opinion, illegal.
Tuesday, March 9, 12:00 p.m. - A meeting is at the White House. Present are the President's Chief of Staff Andrew Card, FBI Director Mueller, Vice President Cheney, CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, Hayden, Gonzales, and other unspecified officials. Comey, Goldsmith, and Philbin are not invited.
NSA and CIA officials brief everyone on the PSP, and the group is then told that James Comey believes some PSP activities are illegal. Vice President Cheney suggests that "the President may have to reauthorize without the blessing of DOJ." Mueller tells Cheney "I could have a problem with that," and tells him that the FBI is going to have to independently "review legality of continued participation in the program."
Tuesday, March 9, afternoon - Gonzales and Vice President Cheney summon Comey, Goldsmith and Philbin to the White House to persuade them that the PSP is important to national security and should be allowed to continue. Vice President Cheney tells Comey that the PSP is "critically important" and warns that Corney is risking "thousands" of lives if Corney does not agree to recertify the PSP. Corney tells Cheney that as the Acting Attorney General he will refuses to reauthorize the PSP unless it is modified. Cheney refuses.
Wednesday March 10, morning - President George W. Bush is told that Comey will not reauthorize the PSP because he thinks it is illegal. Bush tells Cheney to call meeting of Congressional leaders to inform them of the problem. The PSP will expire the next day.
March 10, afternoon - Goldsmith, Philbin, and Corney met in to discuss the meeting at the White House the day before and how DOJ should proceed. Goldsmith and Philbin confirmed their position to Corney that some of the "Other Intelligence Activities" under the PSP are not legal and must be changed or shut down.
March 10, 2004, 4:30 p.m.- Cheney, Gonzales, Card, Hayden, McLaughlin, and Tenet, convene an emergency meeting with congressional leaders in the White House Situation Room. Present are Senate Majority and Minority Leaders Bill Frist and Thomas A. Daschle; Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts and Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller; Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi; and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chair Porter Goss and Ranking Member Jane Harman. This group is known informally as the "Gang of Eight." No one from Dept. of Justice is invited to attend the meeting.
Gonzales later tells Comey that Congressional leaders agreed that the PSP was legal and should continue, he testifies to this later under oath. Pelosi, Rockefeller, and Daschle later issue statements sharply disputing Gonzales's characterization of their statements at the March 10, meeting, stating that there was no consensus at the meeting that the program should proceed. Pelosi later states that at that meeting she "made clear my disagreement with what the White House was asking" concerning the program.
March 10, 6:00 p.m. - President George Bush tells Gonzales and Card to go to the hospital and speak to Ashcroft, who is intensive care, recovering from surgery.
March 10, 6:20 p.m. - Andrew Card calls the hospital and tells an agent in Ashcroft's security detail that President Bush will be calling to speak with Ashcroft. Ashcroft's wife told the agent to tell Card that Ashcroft will not accept the call.
March 10, 6:30 p.m. - The agent calls Ashcroft's Chief of Staff David Ayres to request that Ayres speak with Card, and tell the President about Mrs. Ashcroft's desire that no calls be made to John Ashcroft.
March 10, 6:45 p.m. - Andrew Card and President Bush call the hospital and insist on speaking with John Ashcroft. Mrs. Ashcroft takes the call from Card and the President. President Bush tells her that Gonzales and Card are on their way to the hospital to see Ashcroft regarding a matter involving national security.
March 10, 7:00 p.m. - At the DOJ, Chief of Staff Ayres tells James Comey that Gonzales and Card are on their way to the hospital to try to get Ashcroft to reauthorize the PSP.
March 10, 7:03 p.m. - Comey calls his own Chief of Staff and tells him to "get as many of my people as possible to the hospital immediately."
March 10, 7:05 p.m - Comey then calls Mueller and tells him that Gonzales and Card are on their way to the hospital and that John Ashcroft was in no condition to receive guests, much less make a decision about whether to recertify the PSP. Comey wants Mueller to witness Ashcroft's condition. Mueller tells Corney he will go to the hospital right away.
March 10, 7:10 p.m. - Comey calls Philbin tells him to get to the hospital right away because Gonzales and Card were on their way there "to get Ashcroft to sign something" reauthorizing the PSP. Comey also tells Philbin to call Goldsmith and tell him what is happening.
March 10, 7:25 p.m. - Comey arrives at GW hospital, and with his own security detail, runs up the stairs to Ashcroft's floor, and enters Ashcroft's room, where he finds Ashcroft lying in bed and his wife standing by the side. Comey finds Ashcroft unfocused and later says that he "seemed pretty bad off."
March 10, 7:30 p.m. - Goldsmith arrives at the hospital.
March 10, 7:32 p.m.- Philbin arrives at the hospital.
March 10, 7:33 p.m. - Comey, Goldsmith, and Philbin met briefly in an FBI "command post" in a room next to Ashcroft's room.
March 10, 7:34 p.m. - Comey, Goldsmith, and Philbin are informed that Card and Gonzales have arrived at the hospital and are on their way upstairs to see Ashcroft.
March 10, 7:35 p.m.- Comey, Goldsmith, and Philbin enter Ashcroft's room tell Ashcroft "not to sign anything."
March 10, 7:35 p.m. - Gonzales and Card enter Ashcroft's hospital room.
March 10, 7:35 p.m. - Mrs. Ashcroft is at the head of Ashcroft's bed. Comey, Goldsmith, and Philbin stand behind Gonzales and Card. Gonzales is carrying a manila envelope. Inside the envelope is a Presidential Authorization for the PSP, requiring Ashcroft's signature.
March 10, 7:36 p.m. - Gonzales asks Ashcroft how he is feeling. Ashcroft replies, "Not well." Gonzales says, "You know, there's a reauthorization that has to be renewed ...."
March 10, 7:36 p.m. - Ashcroft tells Gonzales, in very strong terms, that he thinks the PSP is illegal. He then states, "But that doesn't matter, because I'm not the Attorney General. There is the Attorney General," and he points to Comey.
March 10, 7:40 p.m. Gonzales and Card, without acknowledging Comey, turn and walk out of the room.
March 10, 7:41 p.m. Mueller arrives at the hospital.
March 10, 8:00 p.m., Mueller goes into Ashcroft's room for 10 minutes. Mueller notes: "AG in chair; is feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed."
March 10, 8:15 p.m. - White House Chief of Staff Card calls Comey at the hospital. Card is very upset and demands that Corney come to the White House immediately. Comey tells Card that he will meet with him, but not without DOJ Solicitor General Ted Olson as a witness.
March 10, 11:00 p.m. - Comey and Olson arrive at the White House and meet with Gonzales and Card. Comey again informs them he will not approve legal authorization of the surveillance program.
March 11, midnight - Final day until authorization for the PSP expires.
March 11, morning - President Bush signs a new Authorization for the PSP.
In a departure from the past practice of having the Attorney General certify the Authorization as to form and legality, the March 11 Authorization is certified by the White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales.
The March 11 Authorization also differs from prior Authorizations in three other respects. It explicitly asserts that the President's exercise of his Article II Commander-in-Chief authority displaces any contrary provisions of law, including FISA. It also describes certain “Other Intelligence Activities” being conducted under the PSP to address questions regarding whether such activities had actually been authorized explicitly in prior Authorizations.
It also states that in approving the prior Presidential Authorizations as to form and legality, the Attorney General previously had authorized the same activities now being approved under the March 11 Authorization. This statement is subsequently was removed from future Authorizations after John Ashcroft complained to Gonzales that the statement was "inappropriate."
March 11, morning - White House Chief of Staff Card calls Comey and tells him that that the President has just signed a new Authorization for the PSP.
March 11, 12:00 p.m. - Gonzales calls Goldsmith and tells him that the President, in issuing the Authorization, had made an interpretation of law concerning his authority and that DOJ should not act in contradiction of the President's determinations.
March 11, 12:10 p.m. - Director Mueller meets with Card at the White House. Card tells Mueller that if no "legislative fix" can be found by May 6, 2004, when the March 11 Authorization is set to expire, the program will be discontinued. Mueller tell Card that the failure to have DOJ representation at the congressional briefing and the attempt to have Ashcroft certify the Authorization without going through Comey "gave the strong perception that the [White House] was trying to do an end run around the Acting [Attorney General] whom they knew to have serious concerns as to the legality of portions of the program." Card responds that he and Gonzales were unaware at the time of the hospital visit that Comey was the Acting Attorney General, and that they had only been following the directions of the President.
March 11 - Comey drafts a letter of resignation. Ashcroft's Chief of Staff David Ayres urges Comey to wait until Ashcroft was well enough to resign with him.
Goldsmith also drafts a resignation letter, citing the "shoddiness" of the prior legal review of the PSP, the "over-secrecy" of the PSP, and the "shameful" incident at the hospital. Comey believes several senior DOJ officials, including Chuck Rosenberg, Daniel Levin, James Baker, David Ayres, and Deputy Chief of Staff to the Attorney General David Israelite, are also prepared to resign. Comey believes that "a large portion" of his staff will resign if he does.
March 12, 1:30 a.m. - FBI Director Mueller drafts a letter by hand, stating in part: "After reviewing the plain language of the FISA statute, and the order issued yesterday by the President ... and in the absence of further clarification of the legality of the program from the Attorney General, I am forced to withdraw the FBI from participation in the program. Further, should the President order the continuation of the FBI's participation in the program, and in the absence of further legal advice from the AG, I would be constrained to resign as Director of the FBI." Mueller plans on having the letter typed and then tendering it later, but he does not.
March 12 - Comey and Mueller attended the regular daily threat briefing with the President in the Oval Office. After the briefing President Bush calls Comey into his private study for an "unscheduled meeting." Comey tells the President about the DOJ's legal concerns regarding the PSP. The President's response indicates that he had not been fully informed of these concerns. Comey tells the President that the President's staff had been advised of these issues "for weeks." The President tells Comey that he just needs until May 6, and that if he could not get Congress to fix FISA by then he would shut down the program. The President emphasizes the importance of the program and that it "saves lives."
March 12 - The President meets with Mueller. Mueller tells the President of his concerns regarding the FBI's continued participation in the program without an opinion from the Attorney General as to its legality, and that he was considering resigning if the FBI were directed to continue to participate without the concurrence of the Attorney General. Mueller explains to the President that he has an "independent obligation to the FBI and to DOJ to assure the legality of actions", the FBI undertakes and that a presidential order alone cannot do that. The President directs Mueller to meet with Comey and other PSP principals to address the legal concerns so that the FBI could continue participating in the program "as appropriate under the law."
March 12 - Comey decides not to direct the FBI to cease cooperating with the NSA in conjunction with the PSP. Comey’s decision is documented in a one-page memorandum from Goldsmith to Comey, in which Goldsmith explains that the President, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive with the constitutional duty to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed," made a determination that the PSP, as practiced, was lawful. Goldsmith concludes that this determination was binding on the entire Executive Branch, including Comey in his exercise of the powers of the Attorney General.
On March 12 - An interagency working group led by OLC is convened to continue reanalyzing the legality of the PSP. Goldsmith expresses doubt that a viable legal rationale can be found for the PSP.
March 16 - Comey officially advises the White House that that the DOJ remained is unable to find a legal basis to support certain activities and recommends they be discontinued immediately. Comey advises the White House that the PSP raises serious issues, including Presidential authority to override an act of Congress.
March 16 - Alberto Gonzales replies in writing to Comey, to tell him that the President, not the DOJ, has the final say in interpretation of the law.
March 17 - The President orders modifications to certain PSP intelligence-gathering activities and orders the NSA to discontinue certain Other Intelligence Activities that DOJ believed were legally unsupported.
May 6 - Goldsmith and Philbin completed a legal memorandum assessing the legality of the modified PSP. They trace the history of the program and analyze the legality of all of the intelligence activities conducted under the program in light of applicable statutes, Executive Orders, cases, and constitutional provisions. They conclude the AUMF authorized the President to conduct most activities under the PSP.
May 20, 2004 - Ashcroft writes a memorandum stating that it was not until Philbin and Goldsmith explained to him that aspects of the NSA's “Other Intelligence Activities” were not accurately described in the prior Authorizations that he realized that he had been certifying the Authorizations prior to March 2004 based on a misimpression of those activities.
December 16, 2005 - The New York Times reveals the extent and potential illegality of the PSP. The Times delayed the story for a year at the request of the White House.
December, 2005 - In response to the Times story, Bush defends the program, noting he his, and previous administrations were criticized for not "connecting the dots" prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001. He says that the USA PATRIOT Act and the PSP are helping to connect the dots as best as his administration possibly can.
February and July 2006 - In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales states that the dispute at issue between DOJ and the White House did not relate to the Terrorist Surveillance Program that the President had confirmed, but rather pertained to other intelligence activities. In 2009 the DOJ Inspector General concludes that this was misleading.
Gonzales's testifies that DOJ attorneys did not have "reservations" or "concerns" about the program the "President has confirmed" (the Terrorist Surveillance Program) was incomplete and confusing. In July of 2009 the DOJ Inspector General concludes that this testimony was confusing, inaccurate, and had the effect of misleading those who were not knowledgeable about the program.
May 2006 - During the May 2006 Senate hearing on his nomination to be CIA Director, Hayden said that, had the PSP been in place before the September 2001 attacks, hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi almost certainly would have been identified and located.
February 1, 2007 - The final Presidential Authorization for the PSP expires.
August, 2007 - The Protect America Act is enacted, which amends FISA to expand the government's ability to conduct electronic surveillance in the United States of people located outside the United States.
July, 2008 - The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 are enacted, authorizing the government to intercept, inside the United States any communications of non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. This legislation gives the government even broader authority to intercept international communications than did the provisions of the original Presidential Authorizations.
July 16, 2009 - In an essay in The Wall Street Journal, John Yoo, now a professor at the University of California, directly responds to the Inspector Generals' report. Addressing what he calls the
media-stoked politics of recrimination,” and the report's implication that Yoo supported violations of FISA, Yoo calls FISA an "obsolete law," which was "not written with live war with an international terrorist organization in mind." Yoo writes that the "Founders designed the presidency," as an office to respond "such emergency circumstances" as a time when Executive might determine which laws are suddenly obsolete. In his essay, Yoo argues that function of the presidency is to protect the nation from attack, and that, no law, even if passed by Congress and signed by a previous President, can limit the power of the President to conduct foreign affairs and national security policy, particularly in a time of war. The powers of the President to protect the nation, Yoo writes, ought to exist “without limitation."
“Antedent, standing, positive laws" - Yoo suggests, are useless when the nation can be attacked, nor can legislatures, which act too slowly, be trusted to protect the nation. Only a chief executive with few limits on his power, Yoo writes, can protect the interests of the public.
Because it is impossible to foresee or even define every national emergency, or how it should be addressed, the President's power should be unlimited, writes Yoo. Indeed, to limit the president's constitutional power to protect the nation from foreign threats, he writes, "is simply foolhardy."
***********************************************
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Perspective on the Obama Stimulus
In August 1981, Reagan signed his Recovery Act into law.
He promised to find additional cuts to balance the budget, which
had a projected deficit of $80 billion -- the largest, to that date, in
U.S. history. That fall, the economy took a turn for the worse. To fight inflation, running at a rate of 14 percent per year, the Federal Reserve Board had increased interest rates. Recession was the result. Blue-collar workers who had largely supported Reagan were hard hit, as many lost their jobs. The United States was experiencing its worst recession since the Depression, with conditions frighteningly reminiscent of those 50 years earlier.
By November 1982, unemployment reached nine million, the highest rate since the Depression; 17,000 businesses failed, the second highest number since 1933; farmers lost their land; and many sick, elderly, and poor became homeless.
The country lived through the recession for a full year before Reagan finally admitted publicly that the economy was in trouble. His budget cuts, which hurt the poor, and his tax cuts, which favored the rich, combined with the hardships of a recession, spawned the belief that Reagan was insensitive to his people's needs. (Although it was a 25% across-the-board tax cut, those people in the higher income brackets benefited the most.)
As economic hardship hit American homes, Reagan's approval rating hit rock bottom. In January 1983, it was estimated at a dismal 35 percent. Having failed in his promise to deliver economic prosperity, Reagan's reelection in 1984 seemed unlikely. With a failing economy, hopes for a balanced budget vanished.
While Reagan finally agreed to a moderate tax increase on businesses, he steadfastly refused to raise income taxes or cut defense spending, despite a growing negative sentiment toward the buildup. In January 1983, with his approval rating at an all-time low, the economy slowly began to right itself. Unemployment, as high as ten percent in 1982, had improved enough by 1984 for his popularity to be restored, and
by the November presidential election, it was hard to believe that a second term was ever in doubt.
Source: PBS
He promised to find additional cuts to balance the budget, which
had a projected deficit of $80 billion -- the largest, to that date, in
U.S. history. That fall, the economy took a turn for the worse. To fight inflation, running at a rate of 14 percent per year, the Federal Reserve Board had increased interest rates. Recession was the result. Blue-collar workers who had largely supported Reagan were hard hit, as many lost their jobs. The United States was experiencing its worst recession since the Depression, with conditions frighteningly reminiscent of those 50 years earlier.
By November 1982, unemployment reached nine million, the highest rate since the Depression; 17,000 businesses failed, the second highest number since 1933; farmers lost their land; and many sick, elderly, and poor became homeless.
The country lived through the recession for a full year before Reagan finally admitted publicly that the economy was in trouble. His budget cuts, which hurt the poor, and his tax cuts, which favored the rich, combined with the hardships of a recession, spawned the belief that Reagan was insensitive to his people's needs. (Although it was a 25% across-the-board tax cut, those people in the higher income brackets benefited the most.)
As economic hardship hit American homes, Reagan's approval rating hit rock bottom. In January 1983, it was estimated at a dismal 35 percent. Having failed in his promise to deliver economic prosperity, Reagan's reelection in 1984 seemed unlikely. With a failing economy, hopes for a balanced budget vanished.
While Reagan finally agreed to a moderate tax increase on businesses, he steadfastly refused to raise income taxes or cut defense spending, despite a growing negative sentiment toward the buildup. In January 1983, with his approval rating at an all-time low, the economy slowly began to right itself. Unemployment, as high as ten percent in 1982, had improved enough by 1984 for his popularity to be restored, and
by the November presidential election, it was hard to believe that a second term was ever in doubt.
Source: PBS
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Palin's Investigations
I saw the whole 18 minutes on David Shuster, and if listen carefully, getting through the incoherence, a pattern becomes clear. Just as people say JFK's entire inaugural was about the Cold War, her entire press conference address was about the investigations of her going in on Alaska. From the opening lines to the end, the recurring theme was that because she was the GOP VP nominee, the national media and liberals have descended on Alaska and begun one fraudulent investigation after another, costing taxpyers millions. And the vultures won't stop until she quits, so she's leaving for the goood of Alasaka. Therefore, quitting in the face of numerous ethics investigations becomes an entirely selfless gesture on her part.
Make of that what you will.
Make of that what you will.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
ONLY FOLLOWING ORDERS
(AP) - ROME JUNE 30 -- A former CIA agent on trial for the alleged kidnapping of a Muslim cleric and terror suspect in Milan acknowledged in an interview published Tuesday that he had a role in the operation but insisted he was only following orders. Italy's Il Giornale daily published a rare interview with Robert Seldon Lady,
the CIA Milan station chief at the time of the 2003 disappearance of Egyptian cleric Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, from a street in the northern city. "I am not guilty. I am only responsible for following an order I received from my superiors,"
Lady was quoted as saying by Il Giornale:
"It was not a criminal act. It was a state affair."
the CIA Milan station chief at the time of the 2003 disappearance of Egyptian cleric Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, from a street in the northern city. "I am not guilty. I am only responsible for following an order I received from my superiors,"
Lady was quoted as saying by Il Giornale:
"It was not a criminal act. It was a state affair."
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama Press Conference - June 23, 2009
Obama Press Conference
June 23, 2009
***************************
Obama: Ok I want to say at the outset that of course I condemn the psychotics beating protestors in Iran and there is a retrograde group of knuckleheads who want to claim the US is interfering in the Iran and inciting violence and seize their country and overthrow their government - I am talking of course about the Republican party
Now I also want to talk about something equally controversial - windows and windmills - let me give a shout out to Waxman and Dingell and that guy on the agricultural committee
AG guy: woo hoo that’s me
Obama: and thirdly of course I want to talk about health care and how it can be free if we just stop giving out those free pens to doctors and lollipops for ever child?? I don’t fucking think so!
Now I know many Americans are happy that they have any health insurance at all, but you should know eventually health care costs will exceed the entire federal budget and then the sun will go nova and swallow up the earth
Q: will you still talk to Iran what with all the killing?
Obama: well sure it looks bad but I don't hate the Persians or their wacky religion all I want is for them to pull their godamm heads out of their asses
Nico Suave!
Nico: i have a question from a genuine Iranian - when do plan on betraying the brave Iranians?
Obama: whoa hold on there Nico - I didn't observe the election and it's not for the U.S. to say who won
Nico: awwwww
Obama: but look if you want to know who won an election you don’t look to see who has the best bat-wielding motorcycle riding maniacs
Mel Gibson: shit!
Q: Grade the Fed for me
Obama: I won't say anything bad about Bernanke - however he is a idiot and this is all his fault
Q: oh ok then
Obama: since then he has done a good job of taking the heat for me so that's good
Obama: hells my dog Bo got a credit card with a $5,000 limit!
Q: wow
Obama: I know! I'm not paying for his night out on the town with some bitch he met on Petfinder!
Q: Bailouts?
Obama: if we had more laws in place before maybe this wouldn't have goddamm well happened!
Q: what took you so long to express your meaningless outrage about an election in a far-off country where we have a history of illegal interference?
Obama: because I'm not a total dumbass and didn't want to give the Iranian government ammunition!
Q: that's Reagan's job
Obama: exactly!
Q: will you still invite Iranian officials over for the 4th of July?
Obama: if they want to - I'm serving hot dogs and beer
Q: Will a public plan destroy America?
Obama: Look dipshit premiums are doubling every 9 years - at this rate they will swallow the whole planet!
Obama: oh I know everyone is worried about the deficit - well guess what fuckers it's because we have really high costs and a shitty system with 47 million uninsured
Q: oh
Obama: i want to cut costs, treat people, and spend money efficiently
Q: like how?
Obama: like take it away from insurance companies who waste it on trips to Vegas - yeah i said it Goodman!
Obama: jesus h christ you've got people out there who think they are insured and suddenly they're out 50,000 motherfuckin dollars!
Q: woo
Obama: so I'm talking about disciplining those fucking insurance companies - I'm gonna get medieval on their asses!
Obama: I mean why not offer people the choice of care that fucking members of Congress get!!
Q: but that will drive private bloodsuckers out of business
Obama: well fuck if they can't compete with the government who they say can't do anything right then maybe they fucking suck
Chocolate Chip!
Chip: My friend Lindsay says you are timid and weak and John McCain says you are gay
Obama: what do you think Chippy?
[ full bore glare]
Obama: Lindsay said i was weak? that fish writsted freak?
Chip: well...
Obama: Look I'm the fuckin’ President and Lindsay is a big baby and by the way if I took the side of the protestors the regime would say there were being paid by the CIA
Chip: so what you said just now helps the regime!
Obama: oh fuck off
C Todd!
Todd: aren't you surrendering to the regime?
Obama: hey i know you have the attention span of a puppy on crack but I don't - next question!
Tappy!
J-Tapp: will you sign a public plan or not?
Obama: that's your fucking question?
J Tappp: no I have another
Obama: who the fuck are you Tip Tap the ombudsman?
Tapp: ok Spock won't you drive poor little businesses out?
Obama: don't snark me dood
Obama: Look we all know insurers only have one job - take your money today and tell your to fuck off tomorrow
But look if you believe in the free market and then what the fuck are you worried about?
Tapp: but you promised that employers would keep health insurance forever
Obama: no I never did
Tapp: i know that
Q: you signed an anti-smoking bill - will the bill you signed stop you from smoking?
Obama: oh i see you think you're very clever
Q: no it's a serious question
Obama: no it wasn't and you know it - Macarena!
Macarena: talk to me about Chile
Obama: i like mine with beans, meat, and a lot of heat
Q: no the country
Obama: oh that - hey Chile may bail out California which would be awesome
Q: Brazil?
Obama: well that's very different - their President has the full Brazilian which is very cool
Hans: do we need another stimulus?
Obama: hey I've said it before - no on knew just how shitty Bush's economy was and we still haven't recovered
Obama: my stimulus is working and it will keep working but we are after all in a little Depression
Now I watch Chris Matthews moan about poll numbers and I say hey fucker we're doing everything we can but I don't blame people for being unhappy - I mean just look at Jon and Kate - this is a tough time in America!
April: black Americans are living through a real Depression dood if you won't help who will!?
Obama: Pete Hoekstra's never wins at video poker so he knows how they feel
April: true
Obama: but never fear we are training young people to text and e-mail
Suzanne: did you see the video of Neda??
Obama: yeah it's not as much fun as all the cat videos on YouTube
Suzanne: will you let people in Iran vote?
Obama: i support freedom of speech unlike some previous administrations I could mention - but this is about Iran not America and as Martin Luther King said the Justice League will prevail!
June 23, 2009
***************************
Obama: Ok I want to say at the outset that of course I condemn the psychotics beating protestors in Iran and there is a retrograde group of knuckleheads who want to claim the US is interfering in the Iran and inciting violence and seize their country and overthrow their government - I am talking of course about the Republican party
Now I also want to talk about something equally controversial - windows and windmills - let me give a shout out to Waxman and Dingell and that guy on the agricultural committee
AG guy: woo hoo that’s me
Obama: and thirdly of course I want to talk about health care and how it can be free if we just stop giving out those free pens to doctors and lollipops for ever child?? I don’t fucking think so!
Now I know many Americans are happy that they have any health insurance at all, but you should know eventually health care costs will exceed the entire federal budget and then the sun will go nova and swallow up the earth
Q: will you still talk to Iran what with all the killing?
Obama: well sure it looks bad but I don't hate the Persians or their wacky religion all I want is for them to pull their godamm heads out of their asses
Nico Suave!
Nico: i have a question from a genuine Iranian - when do plan on betraying the brave Iranians?
Obama: whoa hold on there Nico - I didn't observe the election and it's not for the U.S. to say who won
Nico: awwwww
Obama: but look if you want to know who won an election you don’t look to see who has the best bat-wielding motorcycle riding maniacs
Mel Gibson: shit!
Q: Grade the Fed for me
Obama: I won't say anything bad about Bernanke - however he is a idiot and this is all his fault
Q: oh ok then
Obama: since then he has done a good job of taking the heat for me so that's good
Obama: hells my dog Bo got a credit card with a $5,000 limit!
Q: wow
Obama: I know! I'm not paying for his night out on the town with some bitch he met on Petfinder!
Q: Bailouts?
Obama: if we had more laws in place before maybe this wouldn't have goddamm well happened!
Q: what took you so long to express your meaningless outrage about an election in a far-off country where we have a history of illegal interference?
Obama: because I'm not a total dumbass and didn't want to give the Iranian government ammunition!
Q: that's Reagan's job
Obama: exactly!
Q: will you still invite Iranian officials over for the 4th of July?
Obama: if they want to - I'm serving hot dogs and beer
Q: Will a public plan destroy America?
Obama: Look dipshit premiums are doubling every 9 years - at this rate they will swallow the whole planet!
Obama: oh I know everyone is worried about the deficit - well guess what fuckers it's because we have really high costs and a shitty system with 47 million uninsured
Q: oh
Obama: i want to cut costs, treat people, and spend money efficiently
Q: like how?
Obama: like take it away from insurance companies who waste it on trips to Vegas - yeah i said it Goodman!
Obama: jesus h christ you've got people out there who think they are insured and suddenly they're out 50,000 motherfuckin dollars!
Q: woo
Obama: so I'm talking about disciplining those fucking insurance companies - I'm gonna get medieval on their asses!
Obama: I mean why not offer people the choice of care that fucking members of Congress get!!
Q: but that will drive private bloodsuckers out of business
Obama: well fuck if they can't compete with the government who they say can't do anything right then maybe they fucking suck
Chocolate Chip!
Chip: My friend Lindsay says you are timid and weak and John McCain says you are gay
Obama: what do you think Chippy?
[ full bore glare]
Obama: Lindsay said i was weak? that fish writsted freak?
Chip: well...
Obama: Look I'm the fuckin’ President and Lindsay is a big baby and by the way if I took the side of the protestors the regime would say there were being paid by the CIA
Chip: so what you said just now helps the regime!
Obama: oh fuck off
C Todd!
Todd: aren't you surrendering to the regime?
Obama: hey i know you have the attention span of a puppy on crack but I don't - next question!
Tappy!
J-Tapp: will you sign a public plan or not?
Obama: that's your fucking question?
J Tappp: no I have another
Obama: who the fuck are you Tip Tap the ombudsman?
Tapp: ok Spock won't you drive poor little businesses out?
Obama: don't snark me dood
Obama: Look we all know insurers only have one job - take your money today and tell your to fuck off tomorrow
But look if you believe in the free market and then what the fuck are you worried about?
Tapp: but you promised that employers would keep health insurance forever
Obama: no I never did
Tapp: i know that
Q: you signed an anti-smoking bill - will the bill you signed stop you from smoking?
Obama: oh i see you think you're very clever
Q: no it's a serious question
Obama: no it wasn't and you know it - Macarena!
Macarena: talk to me about Chile
Obama: i like mine with beans, meat, and a lot of heat
Q: no the country
Obama: oh that - hey Chile may bail out California which would be awesome
Q: Brazil?
Obama: well that's very different - their President has the full Brazilian which is very cool
Hans: do we need another stimulus?
Obama: hey I've said it before - no on knew just how shitty Bush's economy was and we still haven't recovered
Obama: my stimulus is working and it will keep working but we are after all in a little Depression
Now I watch Chris Matthews moan about poll numbers and I say hey fucker we're doing everything we can but I don't blame people for being unhappy - I mean just look at Jon and Kate - this is a tough time in America!
April: black Americans are living through a real Depression dood if you won't help who will!?
Obama: Pete Hoekstra's never wins at video poker so he knows how they feel
April: true
Obama: but never fear we are training young people to text and e-mail
Suzanne: did you see the video of Neda??
Obama: yeah it's not as much fun as all the cat videos on YouTube
Suzanne: will you let people in Iran vote?
Obama: i support freedom of speech unlike some previous administrations I could mention - but this is about Iran not America and as Martin Luther King said the Justice League will prevail!
Monday, June 22, 2009
He Just Needed to Spend Father's Day Alone
SC Governor's Whereabouts Unknown, Even to Wife
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Where is South Carolina's governor?
Gov. Mark Sanford's wife said Monday the two-term Republican chief executive has been gone for several days and she doesn't know where. Sanford's staff won't say where he is. First lady Jenny Sanford tells The Associated Press her husband said he needed time away from their children to write something. She says she's not concerned. Sanford earned a reputation as the nation's most vocal anti-bailout governor by refusing $700 million in federal stimulus money for schools
until he lost a court battle earlier this month.
Spokesman Joel Sawyer says Sanford was taking time to "recharge" after his failed fight. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said he didn't know
where Sanford is but said he had not been put in charge.
That's a little strange.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Where is South Carolina's governor?
Gov. Mark Sanford's wife said Monday the two-term Republican chief executive has been gone for several days and she doesn't know where. Sanford's staff won't say where he is. First lady Jenny Sanford tells The Associated Press her husband said he needed time away from their children to write something. She says she's not concerned. Sanford earned a reputation as the nation's most vocal anti-bailout governor by refusing $700 million in federal stimulus money for schools
until he lost a court battle earlier this month.
Spokesman Joel Sawyer says Sanford was taking time to "recharge" after his failed fight. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said he didn't know
where Sanford is but said he had not been put in charge.
That's a little strange.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Sharon Theimer Writes Attack Editorial
Sharon Theimer of the Associated Press writes an editorial which includes this about Sonia Sotomayor:
She climbed her way up through New York's Democratic power structure boosted by its ultimate brokers over those years
— Gov. Mario Cuomo, Mayor Ed Koch, Sen. Daniel Patrick
Moynihan and District Attorney Robert Morgenthau.
That's the access of a partner in a corporate law firm,
not a kid from the South Bronx.
This is so ridiculous it can only be the product of utter ignorance or bias. Given the tenor of piece, a shoddy hit job, I assume it's bias. Not racial or sexual, but clearly Theimer has a story she wanted to tell and made the facts fit the narrative. It's also possible, of course, that she knows nothing of how politics works, and assumes only corporate lawyers have their careers boosted by politicians. In fact, those men she names all started, like Sotomayor, relatively poor and unconnected, (except for Morgenthau) and through hard work and getting known and making connections, got into the positions they held and in turn helped others on their way up.
She did go to Princeton and Yale, is smart and able and accomplished, which may also have had something to do with her great sucess. Just a thought.
That apppears not to have occurred to Theimer, who is continuing a proud tradition of fairly stupid analysis pieces from the Associated Press, whose Washington bureau chief was probably so busy exchanging e-mails with Karl Rove and how to secure a Republican victory in 2004.
She climbed her way up through New York's Democratic power structure boosted by its ultimate brokers over those years
— Gov. Mario Cuomo, Mayor Ed Koch, Sen. Daniel Patrick
Moynihan and District Attorney Robert Morgenthau.
That's the access of a partner in a corporate law firm,
not a kid from the South Bronx.
This is so ridiculous it can only be the product of utter ignorance or bias. Given the tenor of piece, a shoddy hit job, I assume it's bias. Not racial or sexual, but clearly Theimer has a story she wanted to tell and made the facts fit the narrative. It's also possible, of course, that she knows nothing of how politics works, and assumes only corporate lawyers have their careers boosted by politicians. In fact, those men she names all started, like Sotomayor, relatively poor and unconnected, (except for Morgenthau) and through hard work and getting known and making connections, got into the positions they held and in turn helped others on their way up.
She did go to Princeton and Yale, is smart and able and accomplished, which may also have had something to do with her great sucess. Just a thought.
That apppears not to have occurred to Theimer, who is continuing a proud tradition of fairly stupid analysis pieces from the Associated Press, whose Washington bureau chief was probably so busy exchanging e-mails with Karl Rove and how to secure a Republican victory in 2004.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Your Congress at Work
S. 1044
To preserve the ability of the United States to project power globally.
S. 1048
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to extend the food labeling requirements of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 to enable customers to make informed choices about the nutritional content of standard menu items in large chain restaurants.
H.J.Res. 52
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to temporarily fill mass vacancies in the House of Representatives and the Senate and to preserve the right of the people to elect their Representatives and Senators in Congress.
“Immediately after taking the oath of office, an individual who is elected to serve as a Senator or Representative in Congress shall provide the applicable House of Congress a list of at least three designees, ranked in order of preference, to take the individual’s place in the event the individual dies, becomes incapacitated, or disappears prior to the expiration of the individual’s term of office.”
Backup Congress! I love it!
H.J.Res. 53
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to Congressional succession.
________________________________________
“ Section 1. No person shall be a Representative who has not selected and been elected together with an Alternate Representative.
H.Con.Res. 131
Directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the National Motto of “In God we trust” in the Capitol Visitor Center.
Stages:
S. 1081
To prohibit the release of enemy combatants into the United States.
S. 1100
To provide that certain photographic records relating to the treatment of any individual engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside the United States shall not be subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act).
S.Res. 158
To commend the American Sail Training Association for advancing international goodwill and character building under sail.
To preserve the ability of the United States to project power globally.
S. 1048
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to extend the food labeling requirements of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 to enable customers to make informed choices about the nutritional content of standard menu items in large chain restaurants.
H.J.Res. 52
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to temporarily fill mass vacancies in the House of Representatives and the Senate and to preserve the right of the people to elect their Representatives and Senators in Congress.
“Immediately after taking the oath of office, an individual who is elected to serve as a Senator or Representative in Congress shall provide the applicable House of Congress a list of at least three designees, ranked in order of preference, to take the individual’s place in the event the individual dies, becomes incapacitated, or disappears prior to the expiration of the individual’s term of office.”
Backup Congress! I love it!
H.J.Res. 53
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to Congressional succession.
________________________________________
“ Section 1. No person shall be a Representative who has not selected and been elected together with an Alternate Representative.
H.Con.Res. 131
Directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the National Motto of “In God we trust” in the Capitol Visitor Center.
Stages:
S. 1081
To prohibit the release of enemy combatants into the United States.
S. 1100
To provide that certain photographic records relating to the treatment of any individual engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside the United States shall not be subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act).
S.Res. 158
To commend the American Sail Training Association for advancing international goodwill and character building under sail.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Jeff Stein, Jane Harman and Porter Goss - What is the Truth?
Jeff Stein of CQ appears to very upset that people are saying some unkind things about Porter Goss and his friends in the intelligence community. At his blog post from May 1, He rails against “conspiracy theories,” and “wild imaginations,” and complains that people have been misrepresenting what he’s been writing. It's as if people just don’t understand that his piece was supposed to be an anonymous hit job on Jane Harman, and they’ve been twisting it around to make his good friend Porter Goss seem like the bad guy! Stein has had to resort to using ALL CAPS to make people understand how innocent Goss is.
Stein says one writer asked "Why Did Goss finger Jane Harman?"
Stein writes: “Well, the short answer is that he didn't, as was made plain in my stories, which were corroborated by the New York Times and Washington Post.”
Stein:
“The drift of the latest commentary on the case is that Porter Goss, the former Republican congressman who headed the CIA during 2004-2006, was out to "get" Harman, his Democratic nemesis on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, when he was its chairman.”
"According to my sources and theirs, Goss was duty bound to notify congressional leaders that Harman had become enmeshed in a national security investigation, and that the FBI intended to question her about a wiretapped conversation she had with a suspected Israeli secret agent."
I like the passive voice there. But how did Harman “become enmeshed in a national security investigation?”
According to Stein’s original story on April 19, Harman is said by “former national security officials to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA wiretap directed at alleged Israeli covert action in Washington.”
So some anonymous national security officials may have overheard Harman, and informed the Dept. of Justice, and some other anonymous national security officials told Stein about it.
Maybe some, maybe all, of these anonymous officials work for Porter Goss. But maybe not. After all, he says there were from the NSA, not the CIA. So how did Porter Goss get involved at all?
Stein says that some people are now claiming that “Goss sought approval to pursue an investigation from both former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, but was rebuffed."
This is incorrect, says Stein.
“No. Goss sought clearance merely to NOTIFY then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that Harman had been heard making potentially prosecutable statements on the wiretap.”
Furthermore, of course, the CIA has no power to "investigate" Harman, or anyone in the U.S., in the usual sense of the word.
Goss is an innocent bystander, you see, a stickler for the law who just wanted to notify Denny and Nancy, not the FBI or Justice.
Stein:
"Over at The Cable, Laura Rozen endowed the CIA director with even further power and motivation to "go after" Harman, writing, "Goss's decision to authorize a FISA warrant that would tap a former fellow lawmaker and rival seems potentially troubling."
"It would indeed be troubling if that were in fact what Goss did. But the problem with Rozen's assertion is that Goss had no power to "authorize a FISA warrant." As Rozen must know, that power belongs to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, upon petition by the Justice Department.”
True, but this is highly disengenuous, since an application for a FISA warrant had to go through, and be approved by, Porter Goss on its way to the FISA court, which never turns down an application. (It never got as that far, because Gonzalez didn't pursue it).
But Stein left out of his original story the most interesting part: how did a conversation of an American, “overheard” on an NSA wiretap, initiate a non-investigation investigation? The answer doesn’t have to be sinister, but it might tell us whether proper procedures were followed, what the motivations of the people involved were, and who was “out to get” who.
On April 19, Stein wrote that after Bush DOJ lawyers, that oh-so-trustworthy, ethical crowd, somehow got their hands on the NSA transcripts with Jane Harman, they wanted to start an investigation.
Stein writes:
“First, however, they needed the certification of top intelligence officials that Harman’s wiretapped conversations justified a national security investigation."
"Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss reviewed the Harman transcript and signed off on the Justice Department’s FISA application, two sources said."
"Goss, a former Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, deemed the matter particularly urgent because of the high rank of Harman, a Democrat, on the Intelligence panel.”
Ok, so maybe Goss was more than a bystander.
But is it true “they needed the certification of top intelligence officials” to investigate Jane Harman? No, it is not true.
Why couldn’t they get a Title III warrant like normal people? Why did these (also unnamed) officials want to go to a Foreign Intelligence Court to wiretap a Congresswoman? Doesn’t that take the “foreign” out of foreign intelligence??
Anyway, Goss did indeed approve of the FISA wiretap of his former fellow member of Congress, and deemed it “urgent.” Sadly for Goss, though, the investigation never happened.
Stein says:
“[Laura] Rozen further muddies the issue by referring to "DOJ's burgeoning investigation into Harman." Not only was a Justice Department "investigation" of Harman not "burgeoning," it had not even begun, as I and others have reported, based on first-hand sources.“
Gee, I wonder how Laura Rozen got the impression there was a “burgeoning investigation?” Maybe because the whole point of Stein’s article was to imply there was an alleged ironclad case against Harman before Gonzalez got involved and stopped it.
On April 19 he wrote this: “Justice Department officials decided there was sufficient evidence to initiate an FBI investigation of Harman. But at the last minute, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales aborted the plan….”
And this: “Another piece of news is that contrary to reports the Harman investigation was dropped for lack of evidence…”
And this: “Gonzales, President George W. Bush’s top counsel before becoming attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe…”
And this: “As for there being no evidence to support the FBI probe the source with first-hand knowledge of the wiretap transcript called that “bull****.”
And this: ”Justice Department attorneys in the intelligence and public corruption units who read the transcripts decided that Harman had committed a crime...”
And this: “The Justice Department attorneys were prepared to pursue a case against Harman…”
And this: “Pelosi and Hastert were never notified and the investigation of Harman was effectively dead.”
Sure sounds like an investigation to me.
Heck, even in the May 1 post blasting Laura Rozen, where he writes, “The Justice Department was investigating secret Israeli operations in the United States, not Harman. (And now even that investigation has evidently come up empty).”
He also writes:
“Back in 2005, however, what the congresswoman was overheard saying to the wiretap target was troubling enough to prompt an investigation of her.”
Stein’s original desperation to imply that there was an investigation of Harman, and then later deny it heatedly, is odd.
Stein concludes, rather defensively:
“Everything else written about hidden agendas in this case is speculation, which, by the looks of instant commentary on the AIPAC case, will undoubtedly continue to take the place of reporting on this sordid affair.”
Indeed, it is speculation and it sordid. Since we have no idea who Stein’s sources are, all we can safely say is that we are getting selective and I might add, patently illegal, leaks from probable-NSA wiretaps, overhearing people they weren’t even investigating, clearly designed to make it look like Rep. Harman did something when no investigation was ever started, or if it was, didn’t go very far. And Harman never did get to Chair that Committee.
Quite frankly, Stein seems pretty desperate to cover for Porter Goss and the other Gosslings, almost to the point of advocacy. Which is interesting.
On April 19 Stein wrote:
"The first director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, opposed an FBI investigation of Harman, according to officials familiar with his thinking, and left it to Goss or FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III , to decide what to do."
Goss was head of the CIA. As Stein correctly points out, he should have no role at all in a criminal investigation of an American.
So why did the director of national intelligence leave it up to the head of the CIA “what to do” about a Democratic Congresswoman?
Stein says one writer asked "Why Did Goss finger Jane Harman?"
Stein writes: “Well, the short answer is that he didn't, as was made plain in my stories, which were corroborated by the New York Times and Washington Post.”
Stein:
“The drift of the latest commentary on the case is that Porter Goss, the former Republican congressman who headed the CIA during 2004-2006, was out to "get" Harman, his Democratic nemesis on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, when he was its chairman.”
"According to my sources and theirs, Goss was duty bound to notify congressional leaders that Harman had become enmeshed in a national security investigation, and that the FBI intended to question her about a wiretapped conversation she had with a suspected Israeli secret agent."
I like the passive voice there. But how did Harman “become enmeshed in a national security investigation?”
According to Stein’s original story on April 19, Harman is said by “former national security officials to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA wiretap directed at alleged Israeli covert action in Washington.”
So some anonymous national security officials may have overheard Harman, and informed the Dept. of Justice, and some other anonymous national security officials told Stein about it.
Maybe some, maybe all, of these anonymous officials work for Porter Goss. But maybe not. After all, he says there were from the NSA, not the CIA. So how did Porter Goss get involved at all?
Stein says that some people are now claiming that “Goss sought approval to pursue an investigation from both former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, but was rebuffed."
This is incorrect, says Stein.
“No. Goss sought clearance merely to NOTIFY then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that Harman had been heard making potentially prosecutable statements on the wiretap.”
Furthermore, of course, the CIA has no power to "investigate" Harman, or anyone in the U.S., in the usual sense of the word.
Goss is an innocent bystander, you see, a stickler for the law who just wanted to notify Denny and Nancy, not the FBI or Justice.
Stein:
"Over at The Cable, Laura Rozen endowed the CIA director with even further power and motivation to "go after" Harman, writing, "Goss's decision to authorize a FISA warrant that would tap a former fellow lawmaker and rival seems potentially troubling."
"It would indeed be troubling if that were in fact what Goss did. But the problem with Rozen's assertion is that Goss had no power to "authorize a FISA warrant." As Rozen must know, that power belongs to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, upon petition by the Justice Department.”
True, but this is highly disengenuous, since an application for a FISA warrant had to go through, and be approved by, Porter Goss on its way to the FISA court, which never turns down an application. (It never got as that far, because Gonzalez didn't pursue it).
But Stein left out of his original story the most interesting part: how did a conversation of an American, “overheard” on an NSA wiretap, initiate a non-investigation investigation? The answer doesn’t have to be sinister, but it might tell us whether proper procedures were followed, what the motivations of the people involved were, and who was “out to get” who.
On April 19, Stein wrote that after Bush DOJ lawyers, that oh-so-trustworthy, ethical crowd, somehow got their hands on the NSA transcripts with Jane Harman, they wanted to start an investigation.
Stein writes:
“First, however, they needed the certification of top intelligence officials that Harman’s wiretapped conversations justified a national security investigation."
"Then-CIA Director Porter J. Goss reviewed the Harman transcript and signed off on the Justice Department’s FISA application, two sources said."
"Goss, a former Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, deemed the matter particularly urgent because of the high rank of Harman, a Democrat, on the Intelligence panel.”
Ok, so maybe Goss was more than a bystander.
But is it true “they needed the certification of top intelligence officials” to investigate Jane Harman? No, it is not true.
Why couldn’t they get a Title III warrant like normal people? Why did these (also unnamed) officials want to go to a Foreign Intelligence Court to wiretap a Congresswoman? Doesn’t that take the “foreign” out of foreign intelligence??
Anyway, Goss did indeed approve of the FISA wiretap of his former fellow member of Congress, and deemed it “urgent.” Sadly for Goss, though, the investigation never happened.
Stein says:
“[Laura] Rozen further muddies the issue by referring to "DOJ's burgeoning investigation into Harman." Not only was a Justice Department "investigation" of Harman not "burgeoning," it had not even begun, as I and others have reported, based on first-hand sources.“
Gee, I wonder how Laura Rozen got the impression there was a “burgeoning investigation?” Maybe because the whole point of Stein’s article was to imply there was an alleged ironclad case against Harman before Gonzalez got involved and stopped it.
On April 19 he wrote this: “Justice Department officials decided there was sufficient evidence to initiate an FBI investigation of Harman. But at the last minute, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales aborted the plan….”
And this: “Another piece of news is that contrary to reports the Harman investigation was dropped for lack of evidence…”
And this: “Gonzales, President George W. Bush’s top counsel before becoming attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe…”
And this: “As for there being no evidence to support the FBI probe the source with first-hand knowledge of the wiretap transcript called that “bull****.”
And this: ”Justice Department attorneys in the intelligence and public corruption units who read the transcripts decided that Harman had committed a crime...”
And this: “The Justice Department attorneys were prepared to pursue a case against Harman…”
And this: “Pelosi and Hastert were never notified and the investigation of Harman was effectively dead.”
Sure sounds like an investigation to me.
Heck, even in the May 1 post blasting Laura Rozen, where he writes, “The Justice Department was investigating secret Israeli operations in the United States, not Harman. (And now even that investigation has evidently come up empty).”
He also writes:
“Back in 2005, however, what the congresswoman was overheard saying to the wiretap target was troubling enough to prompt an investigation of her.”
Stein’s original desperation to imply that there was an investigation of Harman, and then later deny it heatedly, is odd.
Stein concludes, rather defensively:
“Everything else written about hidden agendas in this case is speculation, which, by the looks of instant commentary on the AIPAC case, will undoubtedly continue to take the place of reporting on this sordid affair.”
Indeed, it is speculation and it sordid. Since we have no idea who Stein’s sources are, all we can safely say is that we are getting selective and I might add, patently illegal, leaks from probable-NSA wiretaps, overhearing people they weren’t even investigating, clearly designed to make it look like Rep. Harman did something when no investigation was ever started, or if it was, didn’t go very far. And Harman never did get to Chair that Committee.
Quite frankly, Stein seems pretty desperate to cover for Porter Goss and the other Gosslings, almost to the point of advocacy. Which is interesting.
On April 19 Stein wrote:
"The first director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, opposed an FBI investigation of Harman, according to officials familiar with his thinking, and left it to Goss or FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III , to decide what to do."
Goss was head of the CIA. As Stein correctly points out, he should have no role at all in a criminal investigation of an American.
So why did the director of national intelligence leave it up to the head of the CIA “what to do” about a Democratic Congresswoman?
Monday, April 20, 2009
Harman and the NSA
Th New York Times, April 15
The Justice Department has for more than two years been investigating aspects of the N.S.A.’s wiretapping program.
As part of that investigation, a senior F.B.I. agent recently came forward with what the inspector general’s office described as accusations of “significant misconduct” in the surveillance program, people with knowledge of the investigation said. Those accusations are said to involve whether the N.S.A. made Americans targets in eavesdropping operations based on insufficient evidence tying them to terrorism.
The CQ Harman story, I submit, is not about Jane Harman. It's about the NSA protecting its turf.
Add this the even larger debate about whether the NSA should be in charge of domestic cyber securtity, including of private organizations.
The legal and operational problems surrounding the N.S.A.’s surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees and a secret national security court, said the intelligence officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because N.S.A. activities are classified. Classified government briefings have been held in recent weeks in response to a brewing controversy that some officials worry could damage the credibility of legitimate intelligence-gathering efforts.
So the NSA is being investigated by:
1. The Bush DOJ
2. The Obama DOJ
3. Congress
4. The FISA Court
Is it possible that the NSA is sending a message to all of the above?
The Justice Department has for more than two years been investigating aspects of the N.S.A.’s wiretapping program.
As part of that investigation, a senior F.B.I. agent recently came forward with what the inspector general’s office described as accusations of “significant misconduct” in the surveillance program, people with knowledge of the investigation said. Those accusations are said to involve whether the N.S.A. made Americans targets in eavesdropping operations based on insufficient evidence tying them to terrorism.
The CQ Harman story, I submit, is not about Jane Harman. It's about the NSA protecting its turf.
Add this the even larger debate about whether the NSA should be in charge of domestic cyber securtity, including of private organizations.
The legal and operational problems surrounding the N.S.A.’s surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees and a secret national security court, said the intelligence officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because N.S.A. activities are classified. Classified government briefings have been held in recent weeks in response to a brewing controversy that some officials worry could damage the credibility of legitimate intelligence-gathering efforts.
So the NSA is being investigated by:
1. The Bush DOJ
2. The Obama DOJ
3. Congress
4. The FISA Court
Is it possible that the NSA is sending a message to all of the above?
Abuse of FISA
According to the Congressional Quarterly article regarding Rep. Jane Harman, when Justice Department officials wanted to open a new criminal investigation into a sitting member of Congress, they decided not to use normal channels to apply for a warrant, but tried to go through the procedures designated under the FISA law and the secret FISA court. A law and court specifically created to monitor not Americans, but foreigners. This would have required Alberto Gonzalez to state and justify his belief that the target of the wiretap was a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Apparently if Porter Goss followed the law, he did certify that the information sought was foreign intelligence information and that the information could not reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques. "Agent of a foreign power" means, among other things, someone who knowingly engages in any clandestine intelligence activities. Interestingly, both John Negroponte and Michael Hayden, neither Fourth Amendment zealots, rejected the application to wiretap Harman.
This seems strange at first, but considering that the conversation was originally overheard via a FISA-court approved NSA wiretap, it makes sense. Now consider that the original conversation as reported by CQ directly implicated Alberto Gonzalez and lesser officials, and it looks like the national security officials did not trust the Department of Justice to approve or oversee a normal domestic wiretap. CQ says Goss thought wiretapping Harman was "urgent." However, FISA warrants still need the AG's approval, and - guess what - Gonzalez turned them down.
So now we have a NSA officials who catch a peculiar but not unusual Beltway conversation involving Harman, Pelosi and officials in the Bush DOJ. They and unnamed DOJ attorneys working on national intelligence want to wiretap, but decide not to apply to a federal judge. Instead, perhaps out of habit, using FISA, (this part is unclear) they ask Negroponte, who says no, then Hayden, who turns them down, until finally Porter Goss says yes, only to have it rejected by the now disgraced Gonzalez. Disgruntled and disgusted, after the torture memos are released, they tell their story to CQ, even though they admit no laws were ever really broken.
We should be disturbed by NSA wiretaps being distributed all over Washington, being used in attempt to justify further FISA wiretaps on Americans, including members of Congress in the opposition party, and, when those efforts failed, the contents of the original wiretaps being leaked by rogue officials in order settle inter-agency scores?
Follow up on something Josh Marshall said - wiretapping members of Congress is dangerous territory, but using a *secret* court to do so is extremely dangerous.
This seems strange at first, but considering that the conversation was originally overheard via a FISA-court approved NSA wiretap, it makes sense. Now consider that the original conversation as reported by CQ directly implicated Alberto Gonzalez and lesser officials, and it looks like the national security officials did not trust the Department of Justice to approve or oversee a normal domestic wiretap. CQ says Goss thought wiretapping Harman was "urgent." However, FISA warrants still need the AG's approval, and - guess what - Gonzalez turned them down.
So now we have a NSA officials who catch a peculiar but not unusual Beltway conversation involving Harman, Pelosi and officials in the Bush DOJ. They and unnamed DOJ attorneys working on national intelligence want to wiretap, but decide not to apply to a federal judge. Instead, perhaps out of habit, using FISA, (this part is unclear) they ask Negroponte, who says no, then Hayden, who turns them down, until finally Porter Goss says yes, only to have it rejected by the now disgraced Gonzalez. Disgruntled and disgusted, after the torture memos are released, they tell their story to CQ, even though they admit no laws were ever really broken.
We should be disturbed by NSA wiretaps being distributed all over Washington, being used in attempt to justify further FISA wiretaps on Americans, including members of Congress in the opposition party, and, when those efforts failed, the contents of the original wiretaps being leaked by rogue officials in order settle inter-agency scores?
Follow up on something Josh Marshall said - wiretapping members of Congress is dangerous territory, but using a *secret* court to do so is extremely dangerous.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Precision Torture
NYT:
The memos include what in effect are lengthy excerpts from the agency’s interrogation manual, laying out with precision how each method was to be used. Waterboarding, for example, involved strapping a prisoner to a gurney inclined at an angle of “10 to 15 degrees” and pouring water over a cloth covering his nose and mouth “from a height of approximately 6 to 18 inches” for no more than 40 seconds at a time.
But a footnote to a 2005 memo made it clear that the rules were not always followed. Waterboarding was used “with far greater frequency than initially indicated” and with “large volumes of water” rather than the small quantities in the rules, one memo says, citing a 2004 report by the C.I.A.’s inspector general.
Surprise, surprise.
The memos include what in effect are lengthy excerpts from the agency’s interrogation manual, laying out with precision how each method was to be used. Waterboarding, for example, involved strapping a prisoner to a gurney inclined at an angle of “10 to 15 degrees” and pouring water over a cloth covering his nose and mouth “from a height of approximately 6 to 18 inches” for no more than 40 seconds at a time.
But a footnote to a 2005 memo made it clear that the rules were not always followed. Waterboarding was used “with far greater frequency than initially indicated” and with “large volumes of water” rather than the small quantities in the rules, one memo says, citing a 2004 report by the C.I.A.’s inspector general.
Surprise, surprise.
Friday, April 10, 2009
The brief in Jewel v. US
Ok, I just read the brief in Jewel v. US, regarding the surveillance claims and alleged violations of ECPA, SCA, the Wiretap Law and FISA.
The DOJ makes two arguments. One, that Congress has not waived the Federal government's right to be immune from lawsuits in this area. Therefore the court must dismiss the case.
Two, that regardless of the merits of the suit, (in other words, let's assume the government broke the law and would otherwise be held to account in a court of law) the court must not hear the case due to special circumstances. Namely, that to hear to the suit would disclose information about intelligence gathering activities which would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security. This includes facts about the programs Bush authorized after 9/11 and before FISA was revised.
Incidentally, the brief states that allegations that the Bush progam collected information from people in the US are "false" but then states they can't prove that, because to do so would reveal secrets. The brief also states that even to admit that the government was working with AT&T, for example, would harm national security.
The brief also seeks summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs can't make a prima facie case, since - you guessed it, the facts they would need to show standing and injury, in other words, that they were personally wiretapped - are also secret.
It's worth noting that this is a brief, not a policy statement, nor is it only about FISA, nor is it a defense of Bush's violations of the law, though it could be read that way, or even a denial that they did break the law. It's a motion to dismiss a lawsuit because revelations during the ensuing litigation would harm national security.
Two immediate solutions would be Congress to re-write the laws to waive immunity, and for the judge in this case to review the DOJ claims in private. Also, of course, to ask Obama himself - in a press conference, perhaps - how, even conceding the facts in this case, plaintiffs such as these can seek justice, under his Presidency.
The DOJ makes two arguments. One, that Congress has not waived the Federal government's right to be immune from lawsuits in this area. Therefore the court must dismiss the case.
Two, that regardless of the merits of the suit, (in other words, let's assume the government broke the law and would otherwise be held to account in a court of law) the court must not hear the case due to special circumstances. Namely, that to hear to the suit would disclose information about intelligence gathering activities which would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security. This includes facts about the programs Bush authorized after 9/11 and before FISA was revised.
Incidentally, the brief states that allegations that the Bush progam collected information from people in the US are "false" but then states they can't prove that, because to do so would reveal secrets. The brief also states that even to admit that the government was working with AT&T, for example, would harm national security.
The brief also seeks summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs can't make a prima facie case, since - you guessed it, the facts they would need to show standing and injury, in other words, that they were personally wiretapped - are also secret.
It's worth noting that this is a brief, not a policy statement, nor is it only about FISA, nor is it a defense of Bush's violations of the law, though it could be read that way, or even a denial that they did break the law. It's a motion to dismiss a lawsuit because revelations during the ensuing litigation would harm national security.
Two immediate solutions would be Congress to re-write the laws to waive immunity, and for the judge in this case to review the DOJ claims in private. Also, of course, to ask Obama himself - in a press conference, perhaps - how, even conceding the facts in this case, plaintiffs such as these can seek justice, under his Presidency.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Big Winner in Firing of Rick Wagoner
The big winner in the story of the firing of GM's former CEO Rick Wagoner is Scott Murphy, running in a special election in upstate NY. If I were Murphy, I would used the next 40 hours to let everyone know that while George W. Bush and the Republican party gave away your money to companies like AIG without restrictions, President Obama and the Democrats are finally holding corporate America to account, and are demanding real change for companies asking for a bailout.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Budget Crisis Averted?
The New York Times:
Albany Agrees on a Plan to Raise Taxes on Top Earners
Gov. David A. Paterson and leaders of the Legislature have reached a deal to temporarily raise taxes on New York’s highest earners in order to close the state’s yawning budget deficit, lawmakers and officials involved in the talks said on Saturday.
The new plan, which would expire after three years, would represent the largest state income tax increase in recent history, significantly larger than the surcharges imposed from 2003 to 2005, when the state last faced a major recession.
The plan would raise $4 billion a year by creating two new tax brackets, the highest one affecting those who earn $500,000 or more. If approved by rank-and-file lawmakers in the Assembly and State Senate, the tax increases would be a major victory for unions and liberal advocacy groups and a signal of the new balance of power in Albany, where Democrats won control of both houses of the Legislature and the governor’s office in last year’s election.
Although the proposed tax has been called a “millionaires’ tax,” it would affect those with incomes starting at $300,000, who would be taxed at a rate of 7.85 percent. The highest bracket would carry a tax rate of 8.97 percent — the same as New Jersey’s current highest rate.
Albany Agrees on a Plan to Raise Taxes on Top Earners
Gov. David A. Paterson and leaders of the Legislature have reached a deal to temporarily raise taxes on New York’s highest earners in order to close the state’s yawning budget deficit, lawmakers and officials involved in the talks said on Saturday.
The new plan, which would expire after three years, would represent the largest state income tax increase in recent history, significantly larger than the surcharges imposed from 2003 to 2005, when the state last faced a major recession.
The plan would raise $4 billion a year by creating two new tax brackets, the highest one affecting those who earn $500,000 or more. If approved by rank-and-file lawmakers in the Assembly and State Senate, the tax increases would be a major victory for unions and liberal advocacy groups and a signal of the new balance of power in Albany, where Democrats won control of both houses of the Legislature and the governor’s office in last year’s election.
Although the proposed tax has been called a “millionaires’ tax,” it would affect those with incomes starting at $300,000, who would be taxed at a rate of 7.85 percent. The highest bracket would carry a tax rate of 8.97 percent — the same as New Jersey’s current highest rate.
THE NEXT SHOE TO DROP
The insurance industry could be the next shoe to drop in the financial crisis, a big hedge fund warns. "We think the insurance industry now is essentially where the banking industry was 12 months ago," according to the 5½-page report by Bridgewater, which is distributed to a tight circle of clients.
Bridgewater said the worst of the insurers' problems have yet to emerge. It noted that the industry could be forced to come up with as much as $59 billion in fresh capital as a result of downgrades on assets these companies are sitting on. Insurers are also big owners of commercial real-estate loans, and that market is widely expected to falter as a result of corporate cutbacks and depressed office rents. On top of that, Bridgewater projects the industry will have to shell out as much as $800 billion on so-called whole-life policies, which essentially are life-insurance policies with a savings component. Historically, during rough economic times, holders of these policies tend to draw down on money built up in these accounts whenever they're short on cash.
Bridgewater said the worst of the insurers' problems have yet to emerge. It noted that the industry could be forced to come up with as much as $59 billion in fresh capital as a result of downgrades on assets these companies are sitting on. Insurers are also big owners of commercial real-estate loans, and that market is widely expected to falter as a result of corporate cutbacks and depressed office rents. On top of that, Bridgewater projects the industry will have to shell out as much as $800 billion on so-called whole-life policies, which essentially are life-insurance policies with a savings component. Historically, during rough economic times, holders of these policies tend to draw down on money built up in these accounts whenever they're short on cash.
REPUBLICANS AGAINST WALL STREET
March 26 (Bloomberg) - A special U.S. congressional election in upstate New York may provide an early referendum on a politician who’s not on the ballot: President Barack Obama.
The race in New York’s 20th district will replace Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat who was appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate seat when she became secretary of state. The March 31 election between Democrat Scott Murphy and Republican Jim Tedisco has taken on broader significance because the candidates have made their dispute over Obama’s $787 billion economic-stimulus bill the campaign’s central issue.
Murphy, 39, has hammered Tedisco over his opposition to the stimulus plan, and Tedisco, 58, has criticized Murphy for supporting legislation that allowed AIG executives to receive million-dollar bonuses. The Republican’s ads, in turn, tie Murphy to AIG and government waste. This week, Tedisco staged a walk down Broadway, the main street in Saratoga Springs, to highlight the "greed and indifference on Wall Street and in Washington" that’s hurt people on Main Street.In a March 24 debate hosted by New York’s WNYT Channel 13, Tedisco vowed to “fight against waste and stand up and blow the whistle on Wall Street’s greed” while Murphy highlighted his support for Obama’s stimulus plan.
This ridiculous strutting peacock has no shame at all, does he?
The race in New York’s 20th district will replace Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat who was appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate seat when she became secretary of state. The March 31 election between Democrat Scott Murphy and Republican Jim Tedisco has taken on broader significance because the candidates have made their dispute over Obama’s $787 billion economic-stimulus bill the campaign’s central issue.
Murphy, 39, has hammered Tedisco over his opposition to the stimulus plan, and Tedisco, 58, has criticized Murphy for supporting legislation that allowed AIG executives to receive million-dollar bonuses. The Republican’s ads, in turn, tie Murphy to AIG and government waste. This week, Tedisco staged a walk down Broadway, the main street in Saratoga Springs, to highlight the "greed and indifference on Wall Street and in Washington" that’s hurt people on Main Street.In a March 24 debate hosted by New York’s WNYT Channel 13, Tedisco vowed to “fight against waste and stand up and blow the whistle on Wall Street’s greed” while Murphy highlighted his support for Obama’s stimulus plan.
This ridiculous strutting peacock has no shame at all, does he?
NICE IF YOU CAN GET IT
The funds would help GM meet its goal of
receiving $6 billion from Canada, Germany, the U.K.,
Sweden and Thailand on top of the $16.6 billion it requested from the U.S. to avoid bankruptcy.
receiving $6 billion from Canada, Germany, the U.K.,
Sweden and Thailand on top of the $16.6 billion it requested from the U.S. to avoid bankruptcy.
AP Hypes Fake Notre Dame Controversy
Criticism Over Obama Invite Mounts at Notre Dame
By Tom Coyne, Associated Press Writer Tom Coyne, Associated Press Writer
Fri Mar 27, 9:08 am ET
Many Catholics are angered by Obama's planned appearance at the May 17 ceremony because of his decisions to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and international family planning groups that provide abortions or educate about the procedure.
The consensus Thursday on the campus of the nation's most-prominent Catholic university was that any president should be welcomed at Notre Dame.
Then why you did write the fucking story???
By Tom Coyne, Associated Press Writer Tom Coyne, Associated Press Writer
Fri Mar 27, 9:08 am ET
Many Catholics are angered by Obama's planned appearance at the May 17 ceremony because of his decisions to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and international family planning groups that provide abortions or educate about the procedure.
The consensus Thursday on the campus of the nation's most-prominent Catholic university was that any president should be welcomed at Notre Dame.
Then why you did write the fucking story???
Monday, March 23, 2009
How Does Tom Friedman Stay So Topical?
According to Tom Friedman, there are no adults in charge in Washington. We know this because Eric Cantor is acting like a partisan jerk, Congress is objecting to the AIG bonuses, and President Obama, the top person in Washington... well he went on Jay Leno, so he's just as bad as a third world dictator.
It's probably the laziest column to write -- "a pox on both their houses" -- while you pontificate on what real leaders would really do - take the high, non-partisan road, of course. Weirdly, though, Tommy still believes in business self-regulation, and of course he believes corporate executives, Wall Street financiers even, basically have hearts of gold and sleep wrapped in Betsy Ross' American flag.
See, all Obama had to do was go on national tv and ask the bonus recipients to give the money back. This would be a "great national mission" - giving back millions in unearned, undeserved tax money while remaining obscenely rich being much like going to the moon, or landing on the beaches of Normandy. This would elevate the President, says Friedman, although, oddly, the bonus recipients themselves would be worse off than under the so called "punitive" tax Tommy finds too "banana republic" for his taste. Strangely, he capitalizes the term, perhaps unable to distinguish between the concept of third world nation and a high-end retail chain for bored suburban teenagers.
Anyway, he caps it all by quoting his anonyous Indian buddy and the CEO of some company which helps reluctant businesses "build ethical cultures". Also he quotes fictional anonymous friends who tell him they are depressed listening to the news. Finally, Friedman channels the DJ robot from the Simpsons, attacking - no really - the "clowns" who are balloning in importance and distracting us from the really important stuff. How does Tommy stay so topical?
It's probably the laziest column to write -- "a pox on both their houses" -- while you pontificate on what real leaders would really do - take the high, non-partisan road, of course. Weirdly, though, Tommy still believes in business self-regulation, and of course he believes corporate executives, Wall Street financiers even, basically have hearts of gold and sleep wrapped in Betsy Ross' American flag.
See, all Obama had to do was go on national tv and ask the bonus recipients to give the money back. This would be a "great national mission" - giving back millions in unearned, undeserved tax money while remaining obscenely rich being much like going to the moon, or landing on the beaches of Normandy. This would elevate the President, says Friedman, although, oddly, the bonus recipients themselves would be worse off than under the so called "punitive" tax Tommy finds too "banana republic" for his taste. Strangely, he capitalizes the term, perhaps unable to distinguish between the concept of third world nation and a high-end retail chain for bored suburban teenagers.
Anyway, he caps it all by quoting his anonyous Indian buddy and the CEO of some company which helps reluctant businesses "build ethical cultures". Also he quotes fictional anonymous friends who tell him they are depressed listening to the news. Finally, Friedman channels the DJ robot from the Simpsons, attacking - no really - the "clowns" who are balloning in importance and distracting us from the really important stuff. How does Tommy stay so topical?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Meet the Press with Christina Romer & Eric Eric Cantor - March 15, 2009
Meet the Press
March 15, 2009
Guests:
Christina Romer
Rep. Eric Cantor
************************
Gregory: are we in a war? I love those
Romer: yes - it’s great that means Obama can seize bankers off the street and put torture them without charges
Gregory: but McCain said the fundamentals of the economy were strong just like Bammy
Romer: yes but he was an out of touch idiot
Gregory: are the fundamentals strong or not
Romer: well sure the earth still has a crust
Gregory: so John McCain was right
Romer: yelling at clouds is not the answer
Gregory: was Bush wrong?
Romer: we were all wrong
Gregory: so that proves you could be wrong
Romer: well sure
Gregory: so don’t the people deserve to know what you’re not planning to do?
Romer: huh?
Gregory: has the stimulus failed?
Romer: give it one more week
Gregory: Paul Krugman says you don’t spend enough
Romer: but he didn’t take into account Obama bought his kids a playhouse
Gregory: will Obama tax employees health care?
Romer: no
Gregory: but I read he would
Romer: where?
Gregory: the National Enquirer - also Lindsay Lohan is in trouble again!
Romer: idiot
Gregory: is it off the table?
Romer: which table?
Gregory: THE table!
Romer: oh that table
Gregory: Bailouts for AIG?
Romer: we’re all very angry about that
Gregory: so what are you going to do?
Romer: we’re writing a strongly worded letter urging them to give the money back
Gregory: so it’s like Albert Brooks in Life in America
Romer: right
Gregory: aren’t we going to war with no troops?
Romer: you know dancin’ dave I had I heard you were a true moron
Gregory: but we have no top people at the Dept of Treasury!!
Romer: I’m sure the nation will survive
Gregory: but you need people with experience on Wall Street to get us out of the mess Wall Street created!
Romer: hey we have very high ethics
Gregory: [ sobs ]
Gregory: we need a detailed blueprint for the next four years!!
Romer: you’re very silly
Gregory: but the first thing FDR did was build a highway on the West side of New York!!
Romer: I don’t think that’s right Gregory
Gregory: the hardest thing is to admit the Pile is made of Shit
Romer: we’re working on admitting that
Gregory: so how do square that Shit Circle?
Romer: I’ll let Obama try sell you that crap
Gregory: what should consumers do now?
Romer: save money but also tomorrow go out and buy a car you can’t afford
[break]
Gregory: hey Congressman is the economy recovering?
Cantor: I’d like to think so but let’s face it - Bush left us with a mess and we need socialism for small businesses
Gregory: oh really - what’s your solution to the crisis?
Cantor: help all the little wonderful puppy and kitten businesses who can’t get loans
Gregory: so what? Ayn Rand would say fuck ‘em
Cantor: Government should get out of the way by guaranteeing all business loans
Gregory: you oppose big government spending and borrowing except for your business friends?
Cantor: right - Obama’s Treasury Dept should take over the American banking system
Gregory: so are you a socialist?
Cantor: Republicans believe we should plant magic beans all over America and then harvest the gold that blossoms thereof
Gregory: interesting - is that all?
Cantor: Oh no - we all plan to bash Barack Obama for not having a blueprint for Any Randian Socialism
Gregory: will you vote for the budget bill?
Cantor: no it’s has to be very focused on helping people in my state
Gregory: fair enough
Cantor: Obama is trying to do much and instead of not doing anything which is much more impressive
Gregory: the GOP just discovered spending problems after 30 years of spending like crazy insane people
Cantor: that’s doesn’t give Democrats an excuse to be as bad as Republicans!
Gregory: did you ever oppose spending??
Cantor: no because Republicans love America and the flag and apple pie and the troops
Gregory: that sounds a little like hypocrisy
Cantor: but there’s a train to Disneyland!!
Gregory: you supported 46,000 earmarks
Cantor: yes but Obama is a magic negro here to save us all
Gregory: you gotta be fucking kidding me
Cantor: look we are very troubled that just because Americans completely rejected the GOP liberal policies are being implemented
Gregory: that is a surprise to you?
Cantor: yes because only Republicans understand America
Gregory: Did Congress drop the ball on the economic crisis?
Cantor: yes we need to follow Ayn Rand’s example and have more Randian Regulation
[ break ]
Gregory: are the Dems hypocrites for saying things have gotten better?
Liesman: but things are better!
Tavis Smiley: I hate bad bailouts
David Frum: I am expert on the Depression
Gregory: why is Obama bad?
Frum: because the stimulus is not big enough
Liesman: coming from you that’s stupid
Frum: true - but that’s no excuse
Katty Kay: Europeans don’t care about the recession because they still have health care and at least there are no concentration camps
Gregory: Jon Stewart pointed out that the media failed - is that true?
Liesman: sadly yes
Gregory: that’s pretty horrible - let’s go to economic expert Tavis Smiley
Smiley: Greed is not speed! Wall Street is not Main Street! Poverty is not Dougherty!
Gregory: what should have been done to stop Americans buying a big house?
Frum: Bush should probably not have lied so much
Smiley: how about fewer tax cuts for the rich?
Frum: that’s crazy talk
Kay: journalists didn’t ask any sensible questions
Liesman: well in their defense - they’re idiots
Gregory: Steele is pro-choice now??
Frum: Steele is warm and exciting and fresh
Gregory: you make him sound like an Oreo Pop Tart
Frum: He’s the best thing to happen to the Republican party since stovepipe hats
Gregory: so when will he be fired
Frum: next week
Smiley: I tell you dude you’re not going to get black voters with this weirdo
Frum: he’s not black - but he’s got great blackiness
Gregory: and we’re done
March 15, 2009
Guests:
Christina Romer
Rep. Eric Cantor
************************
Gregory: are we in a war? I love those
Romer: yes - it’s great that means Obama can seize bankers off the street and put torture them without charges
Gregory: but McCain said the fundamentals of the economy were strong just like Bammy
Romer: yes but he was an out of touch idiot
Gregory: are the fundamentals strong or not
Romer: well sure the earth still has a crust
Gregory: so John McCain was right
Romer: yelling at clouds is not the answer
Gregory: was Bush wrong?
Romer: we were all wrong
Gregory: so that proves you could be wrong
Romer: well sure
Gregory: so don’t the people deserve to know what you’re not planning to do?
Romer: huh?
Gregory: has the stimulus failed?
Romer: give it one more week
Gregory: Paul Krugman says you don’t spend enough
Romer: but he didn’t take into account Obama bought his kids a playhouse
Gregory: will Obama tax employees health care?
Romer: no
Gregory: but I read he would
Romer: where?
Gregory: the National Enquirer - also Lindsay Lohan is in trouble again!
Romer: idiot
Gregory: is it off the table?
Romer: which table?
Gregory: THE table!
Romer: oh that table
Gregory: Bailouts for AIG?
Romer: we’re all very angry about that
Gregory: so what are you going to do?
Romer: we’re writing a strongly worded letter urging them to give the money back
Gregory: so it’s like Albert Brooks in Life in America
Romer: right
Gregory: aren’t we going to war with no troops?
Romer: you know dancin’ dave I had I heard you were a true moron
Gregory: but we have no top people at the Dept of Treasury!!
Romer: I’m sure the nation will survive
Gregory: but you need people with experience on Wall Street to get us out of the mess Wall Street created!
Romer: hey we have very high ethics
Gregory: [ sobs ]
Gregory: we need a detailed blueprint for the next four years!!
Romer: you’re very silly
Gregory: but the first thing FDR did was build a highway on the West side of New York!!
Romer: I don’t think that’s right Gregory
Gregory: the hardest thing is to admit the Pile is made of Shit
Romer: we’re working on admitting that
Gregory: so how do square that Shit Circle?
Romer: I’ll let Obama try sell you that crap
Gregory: what should consumers do now?
Romer: save money but also tomorrow go out and buy a car you can’t afford
[break]
Gregory: hey Congressman is the economy recovering?
Cantor: I’d like to think so but let’s face it - Bush left us with a mess and we need socialism for small businesses
Gregory: oh really - what’s your solution to the crisis?
Cantor: help all the little wonderful puppy and kitten businesses who can’t get loans
Gregory: so what? Ayn Rand would say fuck ‘em
Cantor: Government should get out of the way by guaranteeing all business loans
Gregory: you oppose big government spending and borrowing except for your business friends?
Cantor: right - Obama’s Treasury Dept should take over the American banking system
Gregory: so are you a socialist?
Cantor: Republicans believe we should plant magic beans all over America and then harvest the gold that blossoms thereof
Gregory: interesting - is that all?
Cantor: Oh no - we all plan to bash Barack Obama for not having a blueprint for Any Randian Socialism
Gregory: will you vote for the budget bill?
Cantor: no it’s has to be very focused on helping people in my state
Gregory: fair enough
Cantor: Obama is trying to do much and instead of not doing anything which is much more impressive
Gregory: the GOP just discovered spending problems after 30 years of spending like crazy insane people
Cantor: that’s doesn’t give Democrats an excuse to be as bad as Republicans!
Gregory: did you ever oppose spending??
Cantor: no because Republicans love America and the flag and apple pie and the troops
Gregory: that sounds a little like hypocrisy
Cantor: but there’s a train to Disneyland!!
Gregory: you supported 46,000 earmarks
Cantor: yes but Obama is a magic negro here to save us all
Gregory: you gotta be fucking kidding me
Cantor: look we are very troubled that just because Americans completely rejected the GOP liberal policies are being implemented
Gregory: that is a surprise to you?
Cantor: yes because only Republicans understand America
Gregory: Did Congress drop the ball on the economic crisis?
Cantor: yes we need to follow Ayn Rand’s example and have more Randian Regulation
[ break ]
Gregory: are the Dems hypocrites for saying things have gotten better?
Liesman: but things are better!
Tavis Smiley: I hate bad bailouts
David Frum: I am expert on the Depression
Gregory: why is Obama bad?
Frum: because the stimulus is not big enough
Liesman: coming from you that’s stupid
Frum: true - but that’s no excuse
Katty Kay: Europeans don’t care about the recession because they still have health care and at least there are no concentration camps
Gregory: Jon Stewart pointed out that the media failed - is that true?
Liesman: sadly yes
Gregory: that’s pretty horrible - let’s go to economic expert Tavis Smiley
Smiley: Greed is not speed! Wall Street is not Main Street! Poverty is not Dougherty!
Gregory: what should have been done to stop Americans buying a big house?
Frum: Bush should probably not have lied so much
Smiley: how about fewer tax cuts for the rich?
Frum: that’s crazy talk
Kay: journalists didn’t ask any sensible questions
Liesman: well in their defense - they’re idiots
Gregory: Steele is pro-choice now??
Frum: Steele is warm and exciting and fresh
Gregory: you make him sound like an Oreo Pop Tart
Frum: He’s the best thing to happen to the Republican party since stovepipe hats
Gregory: so when will he be fired
Frum: next week
Smiley: I tell you dude you’re not going to get black voters with this weirdo
Frum: he’s not black - but he’s got great blackiness
Gregory: and we’re done
The Chris Matthew Show - March 15, 2009
The Chris Matthew Show
March 15, 2009
Matthews: can Obama cure my illness?
Fineman: no he must explain how all lending works
Tweety: I love you - you’re the best! -- but you’re not bashing Obama enough
Burnett: did you know Banks are not America’s biggest lenders!
Tweety: who are?
Burnett: mafia loansharks
Tweety: Timmy Geither is confusing!!
Sorkin: Look who talking
Fineman: he’s too much of an insider - he’s a green eyeshade guy
Tweety: so who’s doing the White House public relations?
Fineman: Larry Summers
Tweety: oh no
Burnett: all we know is that it’s very important that the big bankers stay rich
Tweety: will Obama give me more money?
Sorkin: everyone thinks we should have a bigger stimulus
Fineman: it will never happen
Tweety: who will stop it?
Fienman: John Boehner and the Electric Randians
Tweety: what’s wrong with America?
Burnett: we borrowed too much money
Tweety: so let’s borrow more money?
Burnett: yes also let’s name some more airports after Ronald Reagan
Tweety: are we all bottoms now?
Burnett: not yet
Sorkin: Jon Stewart will get me for whatever I say
Tweety: don’t flatter yourself opie
Tweety: OMG Obama has abdicated all his power to Rahm Emmanuel!!!
Fineman: that’s right - Congress is writing all the spending bills!!
Tweety: I love it!!
Kornblut: it’s crazy just because Obama is trying to get things done
Tweety: but it’s not like Hillary with health care in 1993!
Tweety: Obama is scaring the money people!!
Sorkin: that’s all you ever say idiot
Tweety: Obama is doing everything which means he has given away all his power!
Fineman: he’s a stud but he needs to get on the road
Sorkin: you just complained that he was on the road too much!!
Fineman: that’s true -- but the point is that he sucks
Burnett: Wall Street thinks he’s doing a good job
Tweety: no no no!
Burnett: the good news Nebraska is hiring telemarkers and casinos in Iowa are doing well!
Fineman: If Franken finally the nasty pro-unions bill will pass
Kornblut: people love the troops which will be good when martial law comes
Sokin: Hank Paulson was right!
Burnett: recovery by 2010!
Sorkin: recovery by 2009 but you just won’t feel it
Kornblut: the Dems will fail!
Fineman: Nes! No!
Tweety: you’re all so smart!
************************************************
March 15, 2009
Matthews: can Obama cure my illness?
Fineman: no he must explain how all lending works
Tweety: I love you - you’re the best! -- but you’re not bashing Obama enough
Burnett: did you know Banks are not America’s biggest lenders!
Tweety: who are?
Burnett: mafia loansharks
Tweety: Timmy Geither is confusing!!
Sorkin: Look who talking
Fineman: he’s too much of an insider - he’s a green eyeshade guy
Tweety: so who’s doing the White House public relations?
Fineman: Larry Summers
Tweety: oh no
Burnett: all we know is that it’s very important that the big bankers stay rich
Tweety: will Obama give me more money?
Sorkin: everyone thinks we should have a bigger stimulus
Fineman: it will never happen
Tweety: who will stop it?
Fienman: John Boehner and the Electric Randians
Tweety: what’s wrong with America?
Burnett: we borrowed too much money
Tweety: so let’s borrow more money?
Burnett: yes also let’s name some more airports after Ronald Reagan
Tweety: are we all bottoms now?
Burnett: not yet
Sorkin: Jon Stewart will get me for whatever I say
Tweety: don’t flatter yourself opie
Tweety: OMG Obama has abdicated all his power to Rahm Emmanuel!!!
Fineman: that’s right - Congress is writing all the spending bills!!
Tweety: I love it!!
Kornblut: it’s crazy just because Obama is trying to get things done
Tweety: but it’s not like Hillary with health care in 1993!
Tweety: Obama is scaring the money people!!
Sorkin: that’s all you ever say idiot
Tweety: Obama is doing everything which means he has given away all his power!
Fineman: he’s a stud but he needs to get on the road
Sorkin: you just complained that he was on the road too much!!
Fineman: that’s true -- but the point is that he sucks
Burnett: Wall Street thinks he’s doing a good job
Tweety: no no no!
Burnett: the good news Nebraska is hiring telemarkers and casinos in Iowa are doing well!
Fineman: If Franken finally the nasty pro-unions bill will pass
Kornblut: people love the troops which will be good when martial law comes
Sokin: Hank Paulson was right!
Burnett: recovery by 2010!
Sorkin: recovery by 2009 but you just won’t feel it
Kornblut: the Dems will fail!
Fineman: Nes! No!
Tweety: you’re all so smart!
************************************************
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Stimulus
I would like Paul Krugman to tell us how much more he thinks the stimulus package should be.
Also, he implies that Obama could get more money through Congress now if he asked, but how realistic is that?
Also, he implies that Obama could get more money through Congress now if he asked, but how realistic is that?
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Obama Offers to Work With Russia
New York Times:
WASHINGTON — President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.
Damm good idea.
WASHINGTON — President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.
Damm good idea.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Will Obama get concessions from the Auto Industry?
It sounded like Rahm Emmanuel, appearing on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, suggested that in exchange for a bailout of the big three auto makers, the administration expects support for Obama's proposals on national reform for Energy and Health Care policy.
Which, if true, is pretty damm smart.
Which, if true, is pretty damm smart.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
HECK OF A JOB, STUPID
The Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory in New Mexico
is missing 69 computers, including at least a dozen that were stolen last year, a lab spokesman said. No classified information has been lost, spokesman Kevin Roark said.
The watchdog group Project on Government Oversight on Wednesday released a memo dated Feb. 3 from the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration that said 67 computers were missing, including 13 that were lost or stolen in past 12 months.
Roark initially confirmed those figures, but later updated them. He said a total of 80 computers were lost or stolen in 2008, but 11 were recovered.
is missing 69 computers, including at least a dozen that were stolen last year, a lab spokesman said. No classified information has been lost, spokesman Kevin Roark said.
The watchdog group Project on Government Oversight on Wednesday released a memo dated Feb. 3 from the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration that said 67 computers were missing, including 13 that were lost or stolen in past 12 months.
Roark initially confirmed those figures, but later updated them. He said a total of 80 computers were lost or stolen in 2008, but 11 were recovered.
Space is a Big Place - But Not Big Enough
Big Satellites Collide 500 miles Over Siberia
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – Two big communications satellites collided
in the first-ever crash of its kind in orbit, shooting out a pair of massive debris clouds and posing a slight risk to the international space station. NASA said it will take weeks to determine the full magnitude of the crash, which occurred nearly 500 miles over Siberia on Tuesday.
NASA believes any risk to the space station and its three astronauts is low.
It orbits about 270 miles below the collision course. There also should be no danger to the space shuttle set to launch with seven astronauts on Feb. 22, officials said, but that will be re-evaluated in the coming days.
"We knew this was going to happen eventually," said Mark Matney,
an orbital debris scientist at Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Oops.
**********************************************************************
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – Two big communications satellites collided
in the first-ever crash of its kind in orbit, shooting out a pair of massive debris clouds and posing a slight risk to the international space station. NASA said it will take weeks to determine the full magnitude of the crash, which occurred nearly 500 miles over Siberia on Tuesday.
NASA believes any risk to the space station and its three astronauts is low.
It orbits about 270 miles below the collision course. There also should be no danger to the space shuttle set to launch with seven astronauts on Feb. 22, officials said, but that will be re-evaluated in the coming days.
"We knew this was going to happen eventually," said Mark Matney,
an orbital debris scientist at Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Oops.
**********************************************************************
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Real America Gets the Truth. We Need the Stimulus.
Everyone gets it but the out-of-touch Republicans in Congress in thrall to Ayn Rand. Will they pay any price at all?
'No' Vote On Stimulus Package Irks Those 'In The Trenches'
By James Oliphant
February 3, 2009
Cape Coral, Fla. — Jim Burch is a proud man from a proud town. "It breaks my heart to say we need help," he says.
And so Burch, the mayor of Cape Coral, was not happy when his congressman, Rep. Connie Mack, voted against the $819-billion stimulus package last week, joining every other Republican House member in opposing the bill.
"Politics has no business where the people and the despair I see in my city are concerned," said Burch, who had traveled to Washington last month to press for passage of the stimulus bill.
Burch's unhappiness shows the tension over the massive spending and tax-cut bill between Republicans in Congress, who generally oppose the legislation as it is now formulated, and state and local officials, who say their communities need an infusion of federal money.
The mayor, whose office is nonpartisan, said the package could provide millions of dollars for local projects. The city might be able restart the upgrade of its sewer and water systems, a project that ended several months ago for lack of funds, taking more than 1,000 jobs with it.
Many local Republicans disagree with Mack's vote. Ray Judah, a Lee County commissioner, said he hoped Mack would "recognize the critical need for infusion of funds for capital projects and job creation." Judah said that local boards are the ones "in the trenches . . . who clearly understand the importance" of the package.
Republican state Rep. Gary Aubuchon added that stimulus dollars would "enable commercial development and reduce unemployment." The state's highest-profile Republican, Gov. Charlie Crist, has been an advocate for the package, which could send as much as $10 billion to Florida.
'No' Vote On Stimulus Package Irks Those 'In The Trenches'
By James Oliphant
February 3, 2009
Cape Coral, Fla. — Jim Burch is a proud man from a proud town. "It breaks my heart to say we need help," he says.
And so Burch, the mayor of Cape Coral, was not happy when his congressman, Rep. Connie Mack, voted against the $819-billion stimulus package last week, joining every other Republican House member in opposing the bill.
"Politics has no business where the people and the despair I see in my city are concerned," said Burch, who had traveled to Washington last month to press for passage of the stimulus bill.
Burch's unhappiness shows the tension over the massive spending and tax-cut bill between Republicans in Congress, who generally oppose the legislation as it is now formulated, and state and local officials, who say their communities need an infusion of federal money.
The mayor, whose office is nonpartisan, said the package could provide millions of dollars for local projects. The city might be able restart the upgrade of its sewer and water systems, a project that ended several months ago for lack of funds, taking more than 1,000 jobs with it.
Many local Republicans disagree with Mack's vote. Ray Judah, a Lee County commissioner, said he hoped Mack would "recognize the critical need for infusion of funds for capital projects and job creation." Judah said that local boards are the ones "in the trenches . . . who clearly understand the importance" of the package.
Republican state Rep. Gary Aubuchon added that stimulus dollars would "enable commercial development and reduce unemployment." The state's highest-profile Republican, Gov. Charlie Crist, has been an advocate for the package, which could send as much as $10 billion to Florida.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
This Week with George Stephanopoulos - February, 1, 2009
**************************************
This Week with George Stephanopoulos
February, 1, 2009
****************************************
Stephanopoulos: Buy American?
Schmidt: screw that - my grandma was a telephone operator and she lost her job to the PhoneBot 2000
Frank: There are British riots hating on Italians - they don't want them taking their Top Chef jobs
Stephanopoulos: that's not good for anyone
DeMint: i have a suggestion - let's cut taxes and regulations!!
Frank: oh yeah that's the problem - not enough regulations
DeMint: [ interrupts ] that's so gai
Frank: shut up ya neocon freak
DeMint: don't call it stimulus when it's government spending
Frank: but it is
DeMint: this is biggest spending ever in history
Frank: no that's the war in Iraq which is apparently free
Stephanopoulos: sorry we're not allowed to talk about that
Frank: well that's the problem isn't it?
FedEx: you have to understand that poor Wall Street types depend on bonuses but then again if you take taxpayer money you should probably not have a $1,400 wastebasket
Stephanopoulos: are teh CEOs idiots?
Schmidt: the best way to compensate CEOs is first with stock and then with taxpayer money
Frank: speaking of the Iraq war this is collateral damage in reverse it’s "collateral benefit" which is when you help people and accidentally aid scumbags
Stephanopoulos: interesting point
Frank: don't underestimate the anger of average American over all this stealing
DeMint: we know cutting taxes jolts the economy immediately
Stephanopoulos: how do we know that?
DeMint: the Heritage Foundation said so
Frank: oh well fuck it then
DeMint: don't call it stimulus when all you are doing is building a bridge - how many Hummers does that buy?
Frank: you are stimulating people from not dying from a collapsed bridge
DeMint: if spending worked America would have the best economy in the world
Frank: Jim why do you hate America??
Stephanopoulos: Obama Failed. To get GOP votes.
Will: Obama let liberals write this bill just because they won the 2008 elections it's outrageous
Stephanopoulos: so?
Will: the protectionism will cost jobs
Stephanopoulos: oh of course
Sanger: the issue is should we kill America like Dems want or fix America like GOP want?
Stephanopoulos: that's it
Woodward: the banks are breaking and liberals want to act without knowing facts - unlike the Bush administration
Stephanopoulos: Obama has failed domestically -
how is he failing internationally?
Radatz: give him time
Stephanopoulos: Afghanistan is Obama's Vietnam
Will: I can't believe Obama got us into Afghanistan it's the size of Texas - is he insane???
Stephanopoulos: who's fault is this?
Will: Obama - and Bill Clinton
Radatz: it's so big the whole idea of going into Afghanistan is crazy!!
Woodward: it's nuts!!
Woodward: When is the peace Obama promised a week ago??? Where is it???
Sanger: he's a failure like Bush!!
Stephanopoulos: so true
Sanger: Obama is going to have invade Pakistan if he aspires to be a great failure like George Bush
Stephanopoulos: should we surrender to the Taliban?
Will: Bush was better because he aspired to greatness and failed where Obama has lower expectations and may succeed
Radatz: the whole idea of being in Afghanistan is ridiculous
Stephanopoulos: did you point this out when Bush was President?
Radatz: no - he gave me a nickname and wiggled his fingers at me once
Woodward: why are we in Afghanistan it's an outrage!!
Radatz: meanwhile Iraq is a paradise
Will: a gangsta's paradise?
Woodward: but but but we have no strategy only a plan!!
Sanger: I agree Obama has made one mistake after another -- first invading Iraq and now Afghanistan
Stephanopoulos: it's crazy
Sanger: Bush was a wonderful President and Obama is very nice but he's no Chimpy
Woodward: speaking from 30,000 feet for a moment
Audience: ban this whiny fucker
Will: the economy here is bad imagine who bad it is in Afghanistan
Stephanopoulos: and all the money Obama wants to spend there!
Sanger: People have begun to understand that Iraq was very expensive
Stephanopoulos: Just in time!
Sanger: and invading Iraq took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan
Stephanopoulos: Truly Obama is a bad President
Radatz: indeed
Woodward: i would like whine some more
[ whine whine whine ]
This Week with George Stephanopoulos
February, 1, 2009
****************************************
Stephanopoulos: Buy American?
Schmidt: screw that - my grandma was a telephone operator and she lost her job to the PhoneBot 2000
Frank: There are British riots hating on Italians - they don't want them taking their Top Chef jobs
Stephanopoulos: that's not good for anyone
DeMint: i have a suggestion - let's cut taxes and regulations!!
Frank: oh yeah that's the problem - not enough regulations
DeMint: [ interrupts ] that's so gai
Frank: shut up ya neocon freak
DeMint: don't call it stimulus when it's government spending
Frank: but it is
DeMint: this is biggest spending ever in history
Frank: no that's the war in Iraq which is apparently free
Stephanopoulos: sorry we're not allowed to talk about that
Frank: well that's the problem isn't it?
FedEx: you have to understand that poor Wall Street types depend on bonuses but then again if you take taxpayer money you should probably not have a $1,400 wastebasket
Stephanopoulos: are teh CEOs idiots?
Schmidt: the best way to compensate CEOs is first with stock and then with taxpayer money
Frank: speaking of the Iraq war this is collateral damage in reverse it’s "collateral benefit" which is when you help people and accidentally aid scumbags
Stephanopoulos: interesting point
Frank: don't underestimate the anger of average American over all this stealing
DeMint: we know cutting taxes jolts the economy immediately
Stephanopoulos: how do we know that?
DeMint: the Heritage Foundation said so
Frank: oh well fuck it then
DeMint: don't call it stimulus when all you are doing is building a bridge - how many Hummers does that buy?
Frank: you are stimulating people from not dying from a collapsed bridge
DeMint: if spending worked America would have the best economy in the world
Frank: Jim why do you hate America??
Stephanopoulos: Obama Failed. To get GOP votes.
Will: Obama let liberals write this bill just because they won the 2008 elections it's outrageous
Stephanopoulos: so?
Will: the protectionism will cost jobs
Stephanopoulos: oh of course
Sanger: the issue is should we kill America like Dems want or fix America like GOP want?
Stephanopoulos: that's it
Woodward: the banks are breaking and liberals want to act without knowing facts - unlike the Bush administration
Stephanopoulos: Obama has failed domestically -
how is he failing internationally?
Radatz: give him time
Stephanopoulos: Afghanistan is Obama's Vietnam
Will: I can't believe Obama got us into Afghanistan it's the size of Texas - is he insane???
Stephanopoulos: who's fault is this?
Will: Obama - and Bill Clinton
Radatz: it's so big the whole idea of going into Afghanistan is crazy!!
Woodward: it's nuts!!
Woodward: When is the peace Obama promised a week ago??? Where is it???
Sanger: he's a failure like Bush!!
Stephanopoulos: so true
Sanger: Obama is going to have invade Pakistan if he aspires to be a great failure like George Bush
Stephanopoulos: should we surrender to the Taliban?
Will: Bush was better because he aspired to greatness and failed where Obama has lower expectations and may succeed
Radatz: the whole idea of being in Afghanistan is ridiculous
Stephanopoulos: did you point this out when Bush was President?
Radatz: no - he gave me a nickname and wiggled his fingers at me once
Woodward: why are we in Afghanistan it's an outrage!!
Radatz: meanwhile Iraq is a paradise
Will: a gangsta's paradise?
Woodward: but but but we have no strategy only a plan!!
Sanger: I agree Obama has made one mistake after another -- first invading Iraq and now Afghanistan
Stephanopoulos: it's crazy
Sanger: Bush was a wonderful President and Obama is very nice but he's no Chimpy
Woodward: speaking from 30,000 feet for a moment
Audience: ban this whiny fucker
Will: the economy here is bad imagine who bad it is in Afghanistan
Stephanopoulos: and all the money Obama wants to spend there!
Sanger: People have begun to understand that Iraq was very expensive
Stephanopoulos: Just in time!
Sanger: and invading Iraq took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan
Stephanopoulos: Truly Obama is a bad President
Radatz: indeed
Woodward: i would like whine some more
[ whine whine whine ]
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Gillibrand!
Monday, January 26, 2009
Street reporter from NBC TV in New York, editorializing:
"Gillibrand appears to be taking it from all sides!"
Evidence: Why, both Peter King and George Pataki don't like her!
Wow!
Street reporter from NBC TV in New York, editorializing:
"Gillibrand appears to be taking it from all sides!"
Evidence: Why, both Peter King and George Pataki don't like her!
Wow!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
OBAMAPHONE
Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama called the
leaders of Israel, Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority
this morning, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
The president “used this opportunity on his first day in
office to communicate his commitment to active engagement in
pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term, and
to express his hope for their continued cooperation and
leadership,” Gibbs said.
leaders of Israel, Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority
this morning, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
The president “used this opportunity on his first day in
office to communicate his commitment to active engagement in
pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term, and
to express his hope for their continued cooperation and
leadership,” Gibbs said.
THAT WASN'T SO HARD
The president said that when top White House aides leave
government, they are barred from lobbying “for as long as I a
president, and there will be a ban on gifts by lobbyists to
anyone serving in the administration.”
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Ok, What the Hell Was in That Man-Sized Safe??
Washington -- Vice President Dick Cheney pulled a muscle in his back while moving boxes and will be in a wheelchair
for today's inauguration.
.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Daniel Libit and Jeffrey Ressner Should Stop Lying
"While Obama’s political opponents were able to use his star power against him during the campaign — remember John McCain’s “Celeb” ad?"
- Daniel Libit and Jeffrey Ressner, Politico
No they're weren't actually, Dan and Jeff. See there's this thing called "the truth," and I hear it's going to be the hip new fad of 2009.
You might want to check it out.
- Daniel Libit and Jeffrey Ressner, Politico
No they're weren't actually, Dan and Jeff. See there's this thing called "the truth," and I hear it's going to be the hip new fad of 2009.
You might want to check it out.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Gregg Easterbrook:
No, that's stupid. And no! I'm not going to bother to explain why!
In other news, it turns out that in Easterbrook's chief complain about the realism of the new James Bond film, Quantum of Solace, regarding whether there is a luxury hotel in the Atacama Desert, he's full of shit.
Note to Gregg: for a tv show you tell us we should all be watching, you sure do bitch about Friday Night Lights a lot.
"In 2007, Bill Clinton complained that taxes on the rich are too low, yet did not voluntarily tax himself by mailing a check to the United States Treasury. Yours truly wrote, "It is self-promotional hypocrisy for Clinton, or any wealthy person, to proclaim a willingness to be taxed more but then not voluntarily tax himself. Clinton and other rich people who make claims about favoring higher taxes on the wealthy, then hoard their money, want to be admired for seeming to be willing to sacrifice -- without the annoying complication of actually making any sacrifice."
No, that's stupid. And no! I'm not going to bother to explain why!
In other news, it turns out that in Easterbrook's chief complain about the realism of the new James Bond film, Quantum of Solace, regarding whether there is a luxury hotel in the Atacama Desert, he's full of shit.
Note to Gregg: for a tv show you tell us we should all be watching, you sure do bitch about Friday Night Lights a lot.
Friday, December 19, 2008
JUST PLAY BALL
Brian McNamee, the former trainer of Roger Clemens, has submitted sworn statements by a federal prosecutor to back up his claim that he was coerced into naming the pitcher as a steroid user in a 2007 baseball investigation. McNamee may be granted immunity in a defamation suit Clemens has lodged against him if his evidence convinces a judge that federal agents threatened to prosecute him unless he told a panel led by former Senator George Mitchell what he’d already told prosecutors about Clemens.
In papers filed in Houston federal court today, Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Parrella, who is investigating the use of banned substances by professional athletes, said he told McNamee that the trainer may become a target if he didn’t cooperate. Parrella said McNamee was given immunity for anything he said during the investigation.
Parrella said in the document that McNamee could have faced criminal charges if he refused to talk to Mitchell. "As part of the Northern District of California's criminal investigation, I requested that McNamee speak to the Mitchell Commission," Parrella wrote. "I told McNamee that speaking to the Mitchell Commission was part of his cooperation with the investigation."
"Why was the federal government there?" Hollingsworth asked. "Why do they care if McNamee talked to Sen. Mitchell? Mr. Mitchell was a private individual doing a private investigation for a private client. Without law enforcement having a purpose, to extend privilege is unheard of in the law. It is a very dangerous precedent to set."
Yeah, yeah, yeah... Clemens is an asshole and steroids are destroying America's youth. That said - why was our federal government threatening anyone with prosecution unless they cooperated with baseball's internal witch hunt/coverup? Because this is Bush's America, of course, which ironically, Clemens once supported so strongly, until it came back to bite him in ass - literally.
In papers filed in Houston federal court today, Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Parrella, who is investigating the use of banned substances by professional athletes, said he told McNamee that the trainer may become a target if he didn’t cooperate. Parrella said McNamee was given immunity for anything he said during the investigation.
Parrella said in the document that McNamee could have faced criminal charges if he refused to talk to Mitchell. "As part of the Northern District of California's criminal investigation, I requested that McNamee speak to the Mitchell Commission," Parrella wrote. "I told McNamee that speaking to the Mitchell Commission was part of his cooperation with the investigation."
"Why was the federal government there?" Hollingsworth asked. "Why do they care if McNamee talked to Sen. Mitchell? Mr. Mitchell was a private individual doing a private investigation for a private client. Without law enforcement having a purpose, to extend privilege is unheard of in the law. It is a very dangerous precedent to set."
Yeah, yeah, yeah... Clemens is an asshole and steroids are destroying America's youth. That said - why was our federal government threatening anyone with prosecution unless they cooperated with baseball's internal witch hunt/coverup? Because this is Bush's America, of course, which ironically, Clemens once supported so strongly, until it came back to bite him in ass - literally.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Is That a Lot?
Bank of America today said it is working
on a plan to eliminate 30,000 to 35,000 jobs
in the next three years across all businesses.
on a plan to eliminate 30,000 to 35,000 jobs
in the next three years across all businesses.
NOW
Reporting from Washington and Chicago - President-elect Barack Obama today reasserted his pledge to overhaul the nation's healthcare system when he takes office, signaling that despite the economic downturn he would attempt a major reworking of the sector that has eluded presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt.
"The time is now to solve this problem," Obama said at a Chicago press conference, where he formally announced that former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle would head his healthcare team."It's not something that we can sort of put off because we're in an emergency," Obama said.
"This is part of the emergency."
"The time is now to solve this problem," Obama said at a Chicago press conference, where he formally announced that former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle would head his healthcare team."It's not something that we can sort of put off because we're in an emergency," Obama said.
"This is part of the emergency."
ANY ENGINEERS NEED WORK?
Abu Dhabi, armed with oil wealth and a $500 billion spending plan, is providing the escape route for engineers as their bets on Dubai’s construction boom turn sour. AAbu Dhabi, where 1 million people sit atop 8 percent of the world’s oil reserves, is pumping money into developing tourist attractions and manufacturing to break away from its dependence on crude. Oil prices have fallen to below $50 a barrel from $147 in July. The spending project, titled “Plan Abu Dhabi 2030,” includes the world’s first Ferrari-branded theme park and museum ventures with the Louvre and Guggenheim.
As Abu Dhabi plans and invests, the economic slump has taken the shine off of Dubai, which borrowed $80 billion to finance its transformation through projects such as the world’s tallest building, the biggest hotel and man made palm-tree shaped islands packed with luxury homes for bankers and professional athletes. Dubai’s focus on financial services, luxury homes and mass tourism attracted skyscraper designers and road-network planners. It also made the emirate dependent on industries that have been hit hard by the economic slump.
As Abu Dhabi plans and invests, the economic slump has taken the shine off of Dubai, which borrowed $80 billion to finance its transformation through projects such as the world’s tallest building, the biggest hotel and man made palm-tree shaped islands packed with luxury homes for bankers and professional athletes. Dubai’s focus on financial services, luxury homes and mass tourism attracted skyscraper designers and road-network planners. It also made the emirate dependent on industries that have been hit hard by the economic slump.
DO NOT FUCK WITH TINTIN
Belgium Arrests 14 Al-Qaeda Suspects Plotting Attack
Dec. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Belgian authorities detained 14 suspected al-Qaeda members, including one Belgian
national who may have been given instructions to carry
out a suicide attack against an unknown target.
Or Hercule Poirot
Now They Figure It Out
IOKIYAR
NYT:
WASHINGTON — A case brought by a Muslim man accusing John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, and Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of complicity in post-9/11 abuses reached the Supreme Court for arguments on Wednesday on the most preliminary of questions: How specific must a plaintiff’s accusations of misconduct be before he is allowed to pursue a lawsuit? That is in a sense a garden-variety question of civil procedure. But the case of Javaid Iqbal, a Muslim man from Pakistan who used to be a cable television installer on Long Island, seemed freighted with something much larger, and many of the justices’ questions concerned whether the context in which the case arose, in the charged atmosphere in the fall of 2001, should alter or underscore ordinary legal principles.
Mr. Iqbal was among thousands of Muslim men rounded up after the Sept. 11 attacks. Some of them were considered to be “of high interest,” and they were held in a special housing unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. While there, Mr. Iqbal said, he was subjected to daily body-cavity searches, beatings and extreme temperatures. He said he was kept in solitary confinement with the lights in his cell constantly on, that he was called a terrorist and a “Muslim killer,” and that he lost 40 pounds during six months in the special unit.
His lawsuit contends that he was singled out for mistreatment based on his religion and national background. Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Mueller, his lawsuit says, implemented the policies that led to the abuse and condoned it. The two officials say that they are immune from suit, a contention rejected by the federal appeals court in Manhattan last year, at least at the most preliminary stage of the case. In the Supreme Court, the officials argued that Mr. Iqbal’s assertions that they were responsible for any abuses he suffered were speculative and lacked supporting factual allegations.
There was general agreement among the justices that the bar for starting a lawsuit, however low, must at least include plausibility. But the justices seemed divided over whether it was conceivable that the defendants here created or condoned a policy rooted in unlawful discrimination.
Justice David H. Souter said he considered plausible the claim “that the attorney general or the director of the F.B.I. was establishing a policy centered on people with the same characteristics as the hijackers.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that a 2003 report from the Justice Department’s inspector general may “lend some plausibility” to Mr. Iqbal’s claims. The report found serious abuses by the facility’s personnel. Mr. Garre urged the justices to ignore the report, saying it was outside the scope of the litigation. But he said the report had made findings helpful to his clients’ contention that their own actions, at least, were lawful.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked a hypothetical question: would a plaintiff be allowed to pursue a lawsuit against the president of Coca-Cola on the bare accusation that the president had personally put mice in soda bottles? Other justices engaged the question, considering whether such a lawsuit would be subject to sanctions on the grounds that it was frivolous and whether the company’s president would have to submit to questioning under oath at a deposition. “How are we supposed to judge whether we think it’s more unlikely that the president of Coca-Cola would take certain actions,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked Mr. Iqbal’s lawyer, Alexander A. Reinert, “as opposed to the attorney general of the United States?”
Justice John Paul Stevens suggested that he was uneasy about lightly letting claims against high officials proceed, mentioning his majority opinion in Clinton v. Jones, the 1997 decision that allowed Paula Jones’s sexual harassment case against President Bill Clinton to go forward. A prediction in that decision about the burden the suit would place on the president — “it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner’s time” — turned out to be incorrect.
NYT:
WASHINGTON — A case brought by a Muslim man accusing John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, and Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of complicity in post-9/11 abuses reached the Supreme Court for arguments on Wednesday on the most preliminary of questions: How specific must a plaintiff’s accusations of misconduct be before he is allowed to pursue a lawsuit? That is in a sense a garden-variety question of civil procedure. But the case of Javaid Iqbal, a Muslim man from Pakistan who used to be a cable television installer on Long Island, seemed freighted with something much larger, and many of the justices’ questions concerned whether the context in which the case arose, in the charged atmosphere in the fall of 2001, should alter or underscore ordinary legal principles.
Mr. Iqbal was among thousands of Muslim men rounded up after the Sept. 11 attacks. Some of them were considered to be “of high interest,” and they were held in a special housing unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. While there, Mr. Iqbal said, he was subjected to daily body-cavity searches, beatings and extreme temperatures. He said he was kept in solitary confinement with the lights in his cell constantly on, that he was called a terrorist and a “Muslim killer,” and that he lost 40 pounds during six months in the special unit.
His lawsuit contends that he was singled out for mistreatment based on his religion and national background. Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Mueller, his lawsuit says, implemented the policies that led to the abuse and condoned it. The two officials say that they are immune from suit, a contention rejected by the federal appeals court in Manhattan last year, at least at the most preliminary stage of the case. In the Supreme Court, the officials argued that Mr. Iqbal’s assertions that they were responsible for any abuses he suffered were speculative and lacked supporting factual allegations.
There was general agreement among the justices that the bar for starting a lawsuit, however low, must at least include plausibility. But the justices seemed divided over whether it was conceivable that the defendants here created or condoned a policy rooted in unlawful discrimination.
Justice David H. Souter said he considered plausible the claim “that the attorney general or the director of the F.B.I. was establishing a policy centered on people with the same characteristics as the hijackers.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that a 2003 report from the Justice Department’s inspector general may “lend some plausibility” to Mr. Iqbal’s claims. The report found serious abuses by the facility’s personnel. Mr. Garre urged the justices to ignore the report, saying it was outside the scope of the litigation. But he said the report had made findings helpful to his clients’ contention that their own actions, at least, were lawful.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked a hypothetical question: would a plaintiff be allowed to pursue a lawsuit against the president of Coca-Cola on the bare accusation that the president had personally put mice in soda bottles? Other justices engaged the question, considering whether such a lawsuit would be subject to sanctions on the grounds that it was frivolous and whether the company’s president would have to submit to questioning under oath at a deposition. “How are we supposed to judge whether we think it’s more unlikely that the president of Coca-Cola would take certain actions,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked Mr. Iqbal’s lawyer, Alexander A. Reinert, “as opposed to the attorney general of the United States?”
Justice John Paul Stevens suggested that he was uneasy about lightly letting claims against high officials proceed, mentioning his majority opinion in Clinton v. Jones, the 1997 decision that allowed Paula Jones’s sexual harassment case against President Bill Clinton to go forward. A prediction in that decision about the burden the suit would place on the president — “it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner’s time” — turned out to be incorrect.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
George Weston In Talks with Bimbo
George Weston Ltd., the majority owner of Canada’s largest
supermarket chain, said it’s in talks with Grupo Bimbo about a possible sale of its Dunedin U.S. fresh bread and baked goods unit.
Don't get any fresh ideas.
supermarket chain, said it’s in talks with Grupo Bimbo about a possible sale of its Dunedin U.S. fresh bread and baked goods unit.
Don't get any fresh ideas.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Mark Halperin, Right Wing Fanboy
You know what was really disgusting? Mark Halperin desperately begging and pleading with right-wingers such as Hugh Hewitt (at the time serving on the front lines on the war on terror - that is, the Empire State Building) to believe him when he said he really was a good conservative, a fanboy of Karl Rove and George Bush, and the he hated that big meaning Helen Thomas who wasn't nice to George Bush at all, so please believe him when he said he wasn't a liberal.
If it's any consolation to the pathetic Mr. Halperin, I believe him.
From 2006, via the estimable Glenn Greenwald:
Hewitt: "I think my giant unified field theory here is that liberal media has destroyed the necessity of the left having to debate, having to reach a message across, because you guys have always papered over the weakness of their arguments. And so, in essence, by creating an echo chamber, and by allowing them to get away with saying silly things, you’ve destroyed the incentive to be smart and facile."
Halperin: "I agree."
Halperin: "Hugh, you and I have agreed on a lot during this show. For the purpose of jacking up your already sky-high ratings, occasionally you pick fights with me where they don’t exist. But you and I agree about that basic premise. I’m keeping notes here on the things we disagree on."
**************************************************************
Halperin: "If, though, you want to in a casual introduction, lump me in with people in my business who are liberally biased and don’t seem to care about it, I think that’s doing your listeners a disservice. They should read the book and what we say in The Way To Win about how the media’s been liberally biased in presidential campaign coverage, what needs to be done to try to fix it, and why the current system may not be any better with new media. But to lump me in with everybody else, I think, is doing people a disservice, because most of my colleagues, as you know, are in denial about it, or blind to it.
****************************************************************************
Halperin: "Let me say one thing we say in the book about Karl Rove, who I respect and enjoy...I enjoy his company. If you look at the allegations of Karl Rove that have been propagated in Texas and in Washington by the media, the liberal media, and by Democrats, and you look at the allegations, there’s…except for the useful indiscretions to which Karl has admitted, there is no evidence for the allegations against him."
"And the ability of the press to paint him as this evil guy, and say that accounts for his success, is fundamental and outrageous. Maybe he did the things he’s accused of, but to have this guy’s image portrayed and defined by things that are accusations that are unproven, we say in the book is really outrageous."
**********************************************************************
Halperin: "You keep saying how much nice stuff there is in the book about Bill Clinton. The book writes at length, in fact, half the book is about Karl Rove and George W. Bush, and I would believe is one of the most favorable, in terms of judging them, and not treating them as evil, things that have been written about Karl Rove since he came to Washington."
***********************************************************************
Halperin: "I think that the relationship between the Bush White House Press Corps, and the Bush White House press staff has not produced a pretty picture for either side. . . ."
Hewitt: "Does Helen Thomas make you proud?"
Halperin: "She... the questions she asks, that represent a point of view, have no place in the briefing room."
******************************************************************
Halperin: Can I introduce you to my interns from Bob Jones University?
Hewitt: I’m glad that you have one. They must feel like a stranger in a strange world.
Halperin: "No, because within my unit, we’re all about being fair and non-partisan."
*****************************************************************
Hewitt: Did [Bill Clinton] radicalize politics by inventing the politics of personal destruction?
Halperin: I think what Bill Clinton did, we say in The Way To Win is, he helped usher in this freak show. The politics of personal destruction was part of it, but it was also making the office of the presidency undignified, wearing shorts into the Oval Office, answering boxers and briefs…
Hewitt: That was hardly how he made the Oval Office undignified.
Halperin: Well, there’s that, too. But we’re talking about early on in his presidency, with the birth of the freak show, in the early 90’s when he got elected. Obviously, he did more to further this along later on through his personal conduct. But the ability of this president, and certainly this first lady, as we write in the book, to restore some of the dignity, personal dignity to the office, has been quite an achievement in the wake of what Bill Clinton did, given the freak show environment in which we live.
**********************************************************************
Hewitt: Do you see any evidence of superior brainpower in places like Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha, as opposed to Rove and Cheney?
Halperin: Those specifically?
Hewitt: Are they on the same playing field?
Halperin: You want me to compare those specific four people?
Hewitt: Yeah, because you’ve got two leaders…
Halperin: If I were running for president, I’d hire Rove and Cheney over Pelosi and Murtha.
**********************************************************************
If it's any consolation to the pathetic Mr. Halperin, I believe him.
From 2006, via the estimable Glenn Greenwald:
Hewitt: "I think my giant unified field theory here is that liberal media has destroyed the necessity of the left having to debate, having to reach a message across, because you guys have always papered over the weakness of their arguments. And so, in essence, by creating an echo chamber, and by allowing them to get away with saying silly things, you’ve destroyed the incentive to be smart and facile."
Halperin: "I agree."
Halperin: "Hugh, you and I have agreed on a lot during this show. For the purpose of jacking up your already sky-high ratings, occasionally you pick fights with me where they don’t exist. But you and I agree about that basic premise. I’m keeping notes here on the things we disagree on."
**************************************************************
Halperin: "If, though, you want to in a casual introduction, lump me in with people in my business who are liberally biased and don’t seem to care about it, I think that’s doing your listeners a disservice. They should read the book and what we say in The Way To Win about how the media’s been liberally biased in presidential campaign coverage, what needs to be done to try to fix it, and why the current system may not be any better with new media. But to lump me in with everybody else, I think, is doing people a disservice, because most of my colleagues, as you know, are in denial about it, or blind to it.
****************************************************************************
Halperin: "Let me say one thing we say in the book about Karl Rove, who I respect and enjoy...I enjoy his company. If you look at the allegations of Karl Rove that have been propagated in Texas and in Washington by the media, the liberal media, and by Democrats, and you look at the allegations, there’s…except for the useful indiscretions to which Karl has admitted, there is no evidence for the allegations against him."
"And the ability of the press to paint him as this evil guy, and say that accounts for his success, is fundamental and outrageous. Maybe he did the things he’s accused of, but to have this guy’s image portrayed and defined by things that are accusations that are unproven, we say in the book is really outrageous."
**********************************************************************
Halperin: "You keep saying how much nice stuff there is in the book about Bill Clinton. The book writes at length, in fact, half the book is about Karl Rove and George W. Bush, and I would believe is one of the most favorable, in terms of judging them, and not treating them as evil, things that have been written about Karl Rove since he came to Washington."
***********************************************************************
Halperin: "I think that the relationship between the Bush White House Press Corps, and the Bush White House press staff has not produced a pretty picture for either side. . . ."
Hewitt: "Does Helen Thomas make you proud?"
Halperin: "She... the questions she asks, that represent a point of view, have no place in the briefing room."
******************************************************************
Halperin: Can I introduce you to my interns from Bob Jones University?
Hewitt: I’m glad that you have one. They must feel like a stranger in a strange world.
Halperin: "No, because within my unit, we’re all about being fair and non-partisan."
*****************************************************************
Hewitt: Did [Bill Clinton] radicalize politics by inventing the politics of personal destruction?
Halperin: I think what Bill Clinton did, we say in The Way To Win is, he helped usher in this freak show. The politics of personal destruction was part of it, but it was also making the office of the presidency undignified, wearing shorts into the Oval Office, answering boxers and briefs…
Hewitt: That was hardly how he made the Oval Office undignified.
Halperin: Well, there’s that, too. But we’re talking about early on in his presidency, with the birth of the freak show, in the early 90’s when he got elected. Obviously, he did more to further this along later on through his personal conduct. But the ability of this president, and certainly this first lady, as we write in the book, to restore some of the dignity, personal dignity to the office, has been quite an achievement in the wake of what Bill Clinton did, given the freak show environment in which we live.
**********************************************************************
Hewitt: Do you see any evidence of superior brainpower in places like Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha, as opposed to Rove and Cheney?
Halperin: Those specifically?
Hewitt: Are they on the same playing field?
Halperin: You want me to compare those specific four people?
Hewitt: Yeah, because you’ve got two leaders…
Halperin: If I were running for president, I’d hire Rove and Cheney over Pelosi and Murtha.
**********************************************************************
Paulson To Announce New Lending
Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve will unveil a lending program to shore up the consumer-finance market, using money from the government’s $700 billion rescue, two people familiar with the effort said.
The Treasury and the Fed will help fund new loans packaged into securities for sale to investors, the people said. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who scheduled a press conference for 10 a.m. New York time, said two weeks ago that he wants to spur lending for automobile purchases and college education while also reducing the cost of credit-card debt.
The Treasury and the Fed will help fund new loans packaged into securities for sale to investors, the people said. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who scheduled a press conference for 10 a.m. New York time, said two weeks ago that he wants to spur lending for automobile purchases and college education while also reducing the cost of credit-card debt.
Oops
PG&E Diablo Canyon Reactors Near Discovered Fault
Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- PG&E Corp.’s Diablo Canyon reactors
in California are near an offshore fault that could generate an
estimated 6.5 magnitude earthquake, a joint study by the utility
and the U.S. Geological Survey found.
Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- PG&E Corp.’s Diablo Canyon reactors
in California are near an offshore fault that could generate an
estimated 6.5 magnitude earthquake, a joint study by the utility
and the U.S. Geological Survey found.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Sunday Talk Show Lineup
ABC's "This Week" - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif.
One Republican, no Democrats.
CBS' "Face the Nation'' - Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
Three Republicans, One Democrat.
NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.; Sen. Richard Shelby; T. Boone Pickens, chairman of the energy investment fund BP Capital.
Two Republicans, One Democrat.
CNN's ''Late Edition'' - Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez; Reps. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; Ted Turner, CNN founder and author of a new memoir.
Two Republicans, One Democrat.
''Fox News Sunday'' - Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.; Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn.; former Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, R-Md.
Three Republicans, One Democrat.
Score: Eleven to Four
One Republican, no Democrats.
CBS' "Face the Nation'' - Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
Three Republicans, One Democrat.
NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.; Sen. Richard Shelby; T. Boone Pickens, chairman of the energy investment fund BP Capital.
Two Republicans, One Democrat.
CNN's ''Late Edition'' - Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez; Reps. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; Ted Turner, CNN founder and author of a new memoir.
Two Republicans, One Democrat.
''Fox News Sunday'' - Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.; Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn.; former Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, R-Md.
Three Republicans, One Democrat.
Score: Eleven to Four
Thursday, November 13, 2008
First Puppy
The Obamas need a cute, family friendly, hypoallergenic dog. May I suggest a Golden Doodle?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
