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!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
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!
************************************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
