Sunday, May 19, 2013

Former Republican Speechwriter...


...discovers the Republican Party.

From David Frum:
...
So now it's Brit Hume who is joining the editors of National Review in warning against impeachment - at least for now.

National Review warns against "talking loosely" of impeachment and adds "the overwhelming likelihood at this point is that Barack Obama will leave office on January 20, 2017." (My italics.)

Hume's phrase was that talk of impeachment is "way premature."

The warnings are prudent and right. Yet the more I hear these warnings, the less reassured I feel. What is being heard by Hume and the editors of National Review that makes their warnings necessary in the first place?
...
Because Conservatives are political terrorists, David.  Because trying to destroy all non-Conservatives  by any means necessary isn't a glitch in the Conservative software but one of its central features.

Mr. Frum appears to have chugged enough of Peggy Noonan's Special Pundit Reserve to have come down with a dangerous case of Lethe poisoning.

For his own good will someone sitting closer to Frum than me please reach across the table and keep slapping him

 

until he remembers the 1990s.



Friday, May 17, 2013

Alcohol Can Be Such a Cruel Bitch



After waiting impatiently for the waiter to bring her a jeroboam of Obama Scandal Popskull Special Reserve big and blackout-inducing enough to blot out in toto the long string of impeachable Republican failures and treasons which she has spent her career merrily whistling right on past, Peggy Noonan finally said "Fuck it!" and chugged a bottle of turpentine.
We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged.
It seems to have escaped Peggers' notice that Barack Obama's reputation among conservatives had "gone from sketchy to sinister" about 40 seconds after it became clear that Barack Obama would be the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008, and that "on The Young Turks" is not technically the same as "among Liberals".

Also, in case you forgot, this was Pegger's take on the revelation that the Bush Administration had secretly upgraded torture from "medieval horror" to "official policy of the United States government":


Noonan: Oh I have reservations about all this. It's hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking oh much good will come of that. Sometimes in life you wanna' just keep walkin'. History has changed. It does change. We have a new administration, a new way. Sometimes I think just keep walkin'. Don't always be issuing papers and reports...Some of life has to be mysterious.
For all of her besotted, revisionist, meandering incompetence, La Noonan will be rewarded with yet another chance to tread the boards on "Meet the Press" along with Mitch McConnell, Donald Fucking Rumsfeld and the creaking, animatronic ruin of the Only Man Who Ever Shat Himself In Terror of Gene Sperling.

Because, by Grabthars Hammer, fuck yes is there a Club.

And you are so very much not in it.

Professional Left Podcast #180

ProfessionalLeft

Beatnik: You're in advertising - How do you sleep at night?
Don Draper: On a bed made of money.

-- "Mad Men" explains the existence of David Gregory




Links:




Da' money goes here:




There is a Club


You are not in it.

Part one million.
Before he decided to commit war crimes, I knew [Donald Rumsfeld] Rummy as an acquaintance, stayed at his house in Taos, dined with him, and often argued with him. He’s fun to argue with, but when cornered, he simply shuts you down.

I remember asking him before the Iraq war why the US was firing Arab linguists just because they were gay. Didn’t we need every Arab linguist we could get? He point blank refused to admit it was happening at all. He openly asked how someone as allegedly smart as I was could be so misinformed. In front of others, he dressed me down for my ignorance.

-- Andrew Sullivan, May 17, 2013
Some places you have to pay extra for that.

Mr. Sullivan continues:
I did not give in, but I did make a mental note: this guy is dangerously out of touch with reality, even as he insists he alone grasps reality...
The longer Mr. Sullivan gazes into his hazy, receding rearview mirror of his own past, the more he uncovers retroactive confirmation of his own incisive judge of character and fearless, truth-to-power independence.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Batman Fights Dracula


In retrospect, it was inevitable.

Absent the original footage, please enjoy this clip of Filipino Batman from the same
sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-genre


Worse Than _____


Charles Pierce asks a rhetorical question:
... 
Can we stop for a moment now and recall that this whole [IRS] business is about delays in certifying groups for their eligibility to participate in what almost every election-law expert in the country regards as one of the pre-eminent scams embedded in the insane way we run our elections in this country? But, please, says The Washington Post, climb right up here and drive the nails in yourself.

The case of Alabama's Common Sense Campaign illustrates the challenges. Riehm, the group's chairman, acknowledged that his organization has had favorite candidates, but it has not endorsed anyone directly.


(coughBULLSHITcough)

The group felt strongly, for example, about Constitution Party candidate Bill Atkinson, who was defeated in a 2011 special election for a seat in the Alabama House of Representatives. Some of the group's members worked on Atkinson's campaign, Riehm said. "He was very conservative, and the right kind of guy we wanted," Riehm said. Riehm said the group's interaction with the IRS was filled with difficulties. Group officials said they first got the runaround and then were told that their file had been misplaced. "The lady I spoke with was very rude and said they would get in touch when they're ready," said Callie Goodrum, an administrator for the group. "Two or three months later I called again, and she said our file had been totally lost and we would have to refile."
Why do I believe that the IRS lady might remember the conversation with Ms. Goodrum differently? Why do I believe Ms. Goodrum's end of the conversation might well have taken place loudly, and in fluent Glennbeckistani? Why do I hate America? Perhaps because she believes the president to be a "Communist dictator wannabe"? And Common Sense Campaign fave-rave Bill Atkinson turned out to have bigger problems as a political candidate than bureaucratic dumbassery, but the wingnuttery was strong in him anyway. And Pete Riehm obviously put the Common Sense Campaign together as a social-welfare organization completely deserving of tax-exempt status. And I am the Tsar of all the Russias...
No, Cholly. We cannot stop. 

Not for a minute. Not for a second. 

Because when the only tool you have is "Obummer McHitler is worse than ______!" -- when your life has no meaning unless the windmills you are tilting at are the Biggest, Windmilliest In History -- then every headline, every tragedy, every rumor, and every legitimate failure cannot be seen in its own context but must instead be the Second Coming of Alexander Butterfield...

.
...and anyone who might see things slightly otherwise must be Part of the Conspiracy.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

What Lit3Bolt Said In Comments



Was too cherce to leave in comments:
This [fiddling with "Dark Art of Racecraft"] is Sullivan's pet "contrarian" issue to boost his links and traffic.

In the vein of Saletan, Hitchens, and others (it goes back to Oscar Wilde, really), Sullivan has mastered the art of trolling his readers into extremely specific knots with odious opinions dressed up in superficially plausible arguments. Then, as columnist after columnist after blogger after blogger takes a whack at the giant Wicker Man Argument Sullivan has made, he pirouettes to the next topic, blithely ignoring any mention his previous odious opinion for weeks, if not months or years at a time, softening his writing with some more conventional opinions or some futuristic meta-think or some pictures of puppies and kitties frolicking in fields.



And people fall for this...

time...

after time...

after time...

again, giving breathless attention to an upper class twit for having such SHOCKING, just SHOCKING, opinions about decent society, gossipgossipgossip.

Andrew Sullivan does not have real opinions on well, anything. Instead, he's a privateer of his own colors, always hoisting sail and weighing anchor wherever the winds are blowing. He straddles conventional wisdom, sometimes agreeing, sometimes not, but he's always careful to offer some red meat to everyone.

Thus, Sullivan can be Catholic and gay married at the same time, because he's the authority of and for gay conservatives, who hate Hillary Clinton for no good reason yet adore Margaret Thatcher for no good reason other than pure tribalism. He's always met somebody, always knows somebody, and can gossip on any topic effortlessly, dismissing who's out and approving of who's in with a smattering of columns and links.

And he is being paid to do this. Because he publishes an appeal for bipartisanship and centrism on Monday, a guessing game on Tuesday, a paean to superficial morality on Wednesday, a worrisome graph of the economy on Thursday, a picture of a puppy on Friday, a incoherent defense of Toryism on Saturday, and some poems and artwork and links on Sunday, all stolen from Buzzfeed and Reddit, and be paid 20 dollars a month by slavish fans who just love his centrist, edgy opinions of how white people are poodles and black people are beagles, cause dog breeds are just like race.

And as soon as anyone opens there mouth to say, "Well, studies show..." or "Actually, you're wrong..." or "I'm never going to give you money, you racist sybarite" he's danced away again, offering a sad picture of a dead Syrian child juxtaposed with his next post about balloons and lollipops and buttsex.
Mr. Ta-Nehisi Coats adds this:
...
Our notion of what constitutes "white" and what constitutes "black" is a product of social context. It is utterly impossible to look at the delineation of a "Southern race" and not see the Civil War, the creation of an "Irish race" and not think of Cromwell's ethnic cleansing, the creation of a "Jewish race" and not see anti-Semitism. There is no fixed sense of "whiteness" or "blackness," not even today. It is quite common for whites to point out that Barack Obama isn't really "black" but "half-white." One wonders if they would say this if Barack Obama were a notorious drug-lord.

When the liberal says "race is a social construct," he is not being a soft-headed dolt; he is speaking an historical truth. We do not go around testing the "Irish race" for intelligence or the "Southern race" for "hot-headedness." These reasons are social. It is no more legitimate to ask "Is the black race dumber than then white race?" than it is to ask "Is the Jewish race thriftier than the Arab race?"
...

Art School, Sharting Cats and the IRS


1,000 years ago, when I worked at a Noted Art School, in addition to the tiny number of terrific full-time techs and managers who worked for me, I also had a small army of student workers under my command.

And when I say "under my command" I mean that at any given time I was running in nine different directions dealing with everything from the students who were chronically late or absent or stoned and left us in the lurch during peak busy hours, to the student who thought it would be an excellent idea to invite a phalanx of his fellow gang members into my department to help settle a dispute with campus security, to the instructor who told his students to commandeer several busy computer labs in the middle of finals week to work on his personal project because "you pay these guy's salaries", to the ambitious student reporter who kept randomly showing up at my door with a video camera in the hopes of catching someone doing something untoward something something "expose all the lies and ripoffs" (not that there weren't plenty lies and ripoffs going on, just not in my little acre of Heaven), to the student worker who left his cat in my office because he hadda getta class and had no one else to look after it.

A cat which, we all learned together an hour later later, was suffering from the most impressive case of projectile, sharting diarrhea you have ever heard of.

"Which has what to do with the IRS exactly?" you might fairly ask.

Well, see, once upon a time one of my student workers got a wild hare up his ass about people lookin' at dirty pictures on the internet in the computer labs.  This was during the dark days when paint-drying-slow phone modem dial-up access was the rule rather than the exception and when wardriving to find those rare, free WiFi hotspots was a real thing, so for the naughty-picture-deprived those college labs with high-speed internet access were a gift from the Porn Gods -- a fact which righteously pissed off the very religious student worker in question.

And he had a point: no one working at one computer carrel in an open lab should have to out up with being distracted or intimidated or repulsed by what another someone else is doing at an adjacent computer carrel.  Also during peak usage hours, someone goofing off at an open lab computer should expect to be asked to come back later if someone else with actual work to do needs that seat.

All part of functioning in a community of diverse people with diverse interests and expectations all trying to share the commons with a minimum of drama, and all of which can usually be handled with a little discretion, tacit and diplomacy.

But the student worker in question did not know from discretion, tacit and diplomacy: he just didn't think people should look at such things-- period -- and all on his own, he Took Steps to Solve The Problem and by posting and enforcing his New Rule that anyone caught looking at any nudie pics on any computer would be tossed out on their asses.

Did I mention this was an art school where the human form was used and abused in the pursuit of grades and truth and infamy and beauty every single day? 



Did I mention that -- from its faculty to its administration -- this art school was one of the last fastnesses of the 1960s?  That is had been one of the places where they painted the signs you saw adorning Grant Park during the polices riots in 1968?  That the DNA of the place as not just pro-free-expression, but in-your-face, I-dare-you-to-call-the-pigs defense of every work or art, no matter how offensive it might be because, fuck you, Art is supposed to Provoke!?  



Did I mention that these were the days when such institution were under siege by anti-art fascists like Jesse Helms?  When professors and students still talked about the time Alderman Allan Streeter, Alderman Bobby Rush and Alderman Dorothy Tillman stomped into the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and confiscated Mirth & Girth (a painting of the late Harold Washington wearing only a bra, G-string, garter belt and stockings) as if it had only happened that afternoon, and when stories like this -- 
At the same time, a student artist at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Dread Scott Tyler, became the subject of controversy for his work, "What is the Proper Way to Display An American Flag?" that displayed an American flag on the floor in a way that encouraged viewers to stand on it. The U.S. Senate voted 97-0 on March 17 to make it a federal crime to display an American flag on the floor or ground. Veterans marched on the museum; the school was rocked by bomb threats; and the Governor of Illinois, while expressing his disagreement, nevertheless signed a bill in July, 1989 that eliminated state grants to both the School and the Illinois Arts Alliance, a state advocacy group which had defended exhibit.
 -- were very much alive and catalyzing just about every conversation about freedom and art in every corridor, classroom and impromptu stairwell smoking lounge?

And into this tinderbox, one indignant, oblivious student worker decided to toss a little match.

You know, until that happened, the record for me being called a "Nazi" in any given 48 hour period on that job was when I announced to faculty and the student that were no longer going to be allowed to use desktop computers as beverage carts  nor would they be able to use the keyboards as cafeteria trays for various configurations of pizza, Doritos and the truly awesome fried egg sammichs from the greasy spoon across the street.

I'm sure I was burned in effigy somewhere that night, but that reaction was trivial compared to the "How dare you you fucking Gestapo fucker!" wrath that fell on my head when I discovered much to my surprise that I was behind a sinister plot to arbitrarily ban the viewing of the human form on every computer in every open lab at a very, very Liberal art school.  This was all it took to confirm our most outspoken faculty members'  darkest suspicions that, despite my poetic license being all certified and up-to-date, I was (in no particular order) a fascist, a jackbooted thug, a Jesse Helms-lover, a narc and generally unfit to be a part of their reindeer games.

Also for one, thrilling moment, the college newspaper thought they might be onto the next Big Story About Hippies Being Repressed By The Man.

Unwinding it took days and talking the various faculty members down from their conspiracies and high dudgeons took much, much longer.

All of which I was put in mind of when I read this about management at the IRS:
...
"Criteria for selecting applications for the team of specialists should focus on the activities of the organizations and whether they fulfill the requirements of the law," the IG report found. "Using the names or policy positions of organizations is not an appropriate basis for identifying applications for review by the team of specialists."

As a result, most applications were not processed for more than 13 months, with some groups waiting more than three years for approval.

The IRS said in a statement this evening that it "welcomes" the report and "agrees that aspects of the original approach for handling the influx of tax-exempt applications were inappropriate, but it is important to clarify a few points."

"Inappropriate shortcuts" were used to identify groups that might be engaged in political activity, the IRS statement admitted, but said most of the groups would likely have been examined the same way regardless of whether those "shortcuts" were used to identify them.

"It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views," the IRS statement said.

"There was no intent to hide this issue, but rather we waited until TIGTA completed their fact finding, made recommendations, and we reviewed their findings," the statement said.

Joseph Grant, the acting commissioner of tax exempt and government entities, wrote in response to the report that the decisions were made in an attempt to increase efficiency, not to target groups with a particular political view.

"The mistakes outlined in the report resulted from the lack of a set process for working the increase in advocacy cases and insufficient sensitivity to the implications of some of the decisions made," he wrote.

"We believe the front line career employees that made the decisions acted out of a desire for efficiency and not out of any political or partisan view point," he wrote.

According to the report, the practice emerged because of insufficient oversight and a lack of knowledge by IRS employees of the rules that governed tax exempt organizations.

"[T]he criteria developed showed a lack of knowledge in the Determinations Unit of what activities are allowed by I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) and I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) organizations," the report found, using the tax code designations for tax-exempt organizations. "Determinations Unit employees stated that they considered the Tea Party criterion as a shorthand term for all potential political cases."
...
Or, as Charles Pierce ably summarizes it:
...
Later on, however, at the very end of the Times story, which has more than a little Jeff Gerth to its structure, we discover -- as upper echelons likely did to their horror -- that, like campaign money, dumbassery finds the cracks in every system.
The inspector general did seem to back up the Obama administration's portrayal of a roguelike operation in Cincinnati flouting the wishes of senior I.R.S. officials in Washington. After being briefed on the screening criteria in June 2011, which included a search of case files for criticism of how the country was being run, Ms. Lerner immediately ordered them to be expanded to encompass applicants that would not necessarily be conservative. But in January 2012, the Cincinnati team had again changed the criteria "without executive approval because they believed the July 2011 criteria were too broad," the report said.
So Lerner told them to stop. And then, six months later, they started again without telling anyone, and on their own.  And now the IRS is telling us all how it happened. Yeah, this is just like Watergate. I predict nobody will remember this last detail two days from now. There will be too many horror stories -- boogedy, boogedy! -- to tell from the darkling halls of Congress.
In the end, what happened at the IRS might indeed turn out to be the vital missing piece of the Grand Old Party's Grand Unifying Obama Conspiracy Theory...or it might be the story of underlings within an understaffed, poorly managed bureaucracy who were left to their own devices to decide how to cope with flood of brand new work.

All I can say for sure it that I while really loved my art school gig,  running the joint was never a matter of "control" so much as it was a matter of constantly renegotiating the acceptable balance between order and chaos caused by too few professional staffers chasing too many weird problems ... on roller skates ... with sharting cats randomly tossed in at moments of maximum stress to keep things lively.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Insufferable Privileged White Conservative Male Asshole Says What?


What on earth are these “liberals” so terrified of, if not the truth? Instead of going on racist witch-hunts, why don’t they question what IQ means, how great the cultural and environmental impact can be (very considerable), whether such tests should guide public policy at all, or examine how “race” as a social construct does not always correlate to specific variations in human DNA. 
-- Andrew Sullivan, May 14, 2013
Once again Mr. Sullivan's facile, bong-hit, dorm-room Something Something Whig Something Something Burke Conservatism blinds him to the country he continues to live in but adamantly refuses to see.

Also this from the same, execrable article -- 
Of course not. We remain the same species, just as a poodle and a beagle are of the same species. But poodles, in general, are smarter than beagles, and beagles have a much better sense of smell. We bred those traits into them, of course, fast-forwarding evolution. But the idea that natural selection and environmental adaptation stopped among human beings the minute we emerged in the planet 200,000 years ago – and that there are no genetic markers for geographical origin or destination – is bizarre. It would be deeply strange if Homo sapiens were the only species on earth that did not adapt to different climates, diseases, landscapes, and experiences over hundreds of millennia. We see such adaptation happening very quickly in the animal kingdom. Our skin color alone – clearly a genetic adaptation to climate – is, well, right in front of one’s nose.
-- which Lawyers, Guns and Money accurately points out is...
...an argument well at home within the circles of late 19th century Social Darwinism, Lamarckism, and scientific racism. I mean, Mongoloid skulls are this big and Nordic skulls are this big. It’s right in front of one’s nose!
It took America's Greatest Gay Conservative Public Intellectual most of his adult life to notice that the American Conservatism is built on a pillar of hating gay people.

I wonder how many more decades of facediving into enormous piles of phrenological offal it will take before what is really going on here begins to slooooooooowly dawn on him.

Have I mentioned recently there is a Club?



Have I mentioned recently that you are not in it?

Monday, May 13, 2013

Both Siderism Gets A New Ally



For someone with a lifetime of experience in live stage comedy Bill Maher can be a  remarkably flaccid and clumsy debater.  Last Friday he came across as the worst kind of First Affirmative: competent at hitting his marks and saying his prepared funny bits, but after that, just useless and bored and shockingly unprepared to talk about a subject that he himself broached with guests he himself books -- instead contenting himself with laying back and waiting for a chance to potshot something smug and indignant about god or politics.  

And so were I judging the portion of "Real Time" during which they clashed over Islam and terrorism as an actual debate round between Messers Maher and Greenwald, I would say Mr. Greenwald won it walking away.  Mr. Maher staked out an indefensibly over-generalized position on Islam (a position which refuses to acknowledge that sometimes terrorism comes carrying a holy book and spouting scripture, and sometimes it comes carrying "The Turner Diaries" spouting quotes about the Tree of Liberty and the Blood of Tyrants) while at the same time trying to underplay the aggravating effect of decades of cavalier United States meddling in the internal affairs of countries all over the world.  In doing so, Mr. Maher opened himself up to a well-deserved beat-down at the hands of Mr. Greenwald, while at the same time stranding poor Joy Reid literally in the middle of what was a dumb argument to begin with.

If you are hungry for more, that segment of the show has already been parsed and critiqued thoroughly here, ably re-deconstructed by Digby here, and re-re-visited by the Washington Monthly here.

But it is an earlier portion of that same conversation that has received little or no attention which I found much more interesting -- the moment when it lurched inevitably to the subject of "Benghaaaazi!" and Mr. Maher asked Libertarian Goofus and National Review Online employee Charles Cooke what the actual Benghazi scandal was about.  

After watching Mr. Cooke flop around like a trout on the tarmac for awhile trying to explain the inexplicable, Mr. Greenwald attempted to air-lift Mr. Cooke out of the mess he was making with an intercession that included this:
... 
So Fox News was "this is the worst scandal ever" and
MSNBC was "Obama did absolutely nothing wrong and was 

perfect as always".


The reality was something in-between... 
I'm not saying its a huge scandal. But there certainly are question when the  government and political officials six weeks before an election say things about a major event like that that prove to be untrue. 
There should be investigations even if Republicans are doing it for political ends -- the same was true when Democrats were investigating Bush official and saying "These are the worst scandals ever" and Republicans were saying nothing happened.
...
Now that is interesting.  It didn't go anywhere because a few seconds later Mr. Maher nailed the subject shut by declaring that he was "bored", but consider what might have happened if Mr. Maher had bothered to follow up on Mr. Greenwald's statement.

First, consider this list from Wikipedia of all the hearings and investigations that have taken place since the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Libya in September, 2012 -- a list Republicans promise will grow all summer long:

Federal Bureau of Investigation

The FBI opened its investigation soon after the attack and it remains ongoing. No arrests have been made. On May 2, 2013, the FBI released photos of three men from the Benghazi attack site, asking for help from the public in identifying the individuals.[209]

Five House Committees

Five House Committees (Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform) initiated their own inquiries soon after the attack. These five House Committees delivered an interim report on April 23, 2013.[210] The interim report was critical of the Obama Administration's actions before, during, and after the attack. Among dozens of findings, the report states that:
  • "Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel"
  • The "[Obama] Administration willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video."
  • "... after a White House Deputies Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2012, the Administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks. The Administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya...."
  • "The Administration deflected responsibility by blaming the IC [intelligence community] for the information it communicated to the public in both the talking points and the subsequent narrative it perpetuated."
Additional congressional hearings were conducted May 8, 2013 with three "whistleblower" witnesses: Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya.[211]

State Department Accountability Review Board

As required by the Omnibus Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, the State Department announced on October 4, 2012 an Accountability Review Board "to examine the facts and circumstances of the attacks."[212] Four members were selected by Clinton and another was selected by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickeringserved as the Chairman, Admiral Michael Mullen served as the Vice Chairman, also serving were Catherine BertiniRichard Shinnick, and Hugh Turner, who represented the intelligence community.[213]
The investigation report[213] was released December 20, 2012. It was seen as a sharp criticism of State Department officials in Washington for ignoring requests for more guards and safety upgrades, and for failing to adapt security procedures to a deteriorating security environment. "Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department ... resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," said the unclassified version of the report.[214] It also blamed too much reliance on local militias who failed to fend off the attackers that evening.[215] The Council on Foreign Relations in an initial report saw it as a refutation to the notion that the Obama administration delayed its response.[216] However, it confirmed that contrary to initial accounts, there was no protest outside the consulate. It placed responsibility for the incident solely upon the attackers, deemed as terrorists.[13]

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-ME) opened an investigation in mid October 2012. Their final report was delivered December 31, 2012.[217] According to the report, "there was a high risk of a 'significant' terrorist attack on U.S. employees and facilities in Benghazi in the months before the September 11, 2012, assault on the Mission, and the State Department failed to take adequate steps to reduce the Mission’s vulnerability."

House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

On January 18, 2013, Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) introduced a bill (HR 36) to establish a select committee to investigate and report on the attack.[218] As of May 9, 2013, the bill has nearly two-thirds support of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.[219] Also supporting the formation of a select committee are 700 special operations veterans[220] and Special Operations OPSEC.[221]
...
Perhaps Mr. Greenwald (or one of his fans) could let me know just how many more hearings Republicans should hold on the wording of a memo before it becomes too many.  Will two more do?  Five?  At what point has the legitimate need for an open, fair investigation been met?  At what point will further hearings serve no purpose but the desire to ratfuck a political enemy? 

Or, as Charlie Pierce surmises, have we already rocketed right past the point where such questions are fucking absurd?
We begin this week's tour of the Great Vapid Plains with a survey of the silliest coverage of the ongoing Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI! mummery, which dominated the weekend's proceedings, and which shows every sign of being a continuing summer miniseries starring Darrell Issa as the Concerned Suburban Dad and Jim Inhofe as the wacky neighbor who dresses up like a fencepost for church on Sunday. Pride of place here goes to the Dancin' Master, who labored long and hard to produce a really terrible historical parallel.
Second (and speaking of ratfucking) perhaps Mr. Greenwald or one of his fans could also identify a comparable witch-hunt or list of witch-hunts actually conducted in bad faith by actual Democrats during the actual Bush Administration that matches the witch-hunting qualities of Benghaaaazi...or Death Panels...or Birth Certificate-gate...or ACORN...or, for that matter, any of the dozens of wingnut drumheads conducted during the Clinton Administration.

Because unless someone can point to actual Democrats who have established an actual, y'know, record of inventing scandals by rubbing two copies of "The Socialist Worker's Daily" together...and then inflating them With Very Big Headlines wall-to-wall for weeks on end in every Liberal media outlet in America...and then point to actual cases where those artificial scandals have been transmogrified into actual Democratic congressional witch-hunts that promise to go on for months...then it seems to me that Mr. Greenwald is telling a Very Big Lie here.

Or perhaps Mr. Greenwald is not lying deliberately but just has an incredibly poor grasp of recent American history.

Or perhaps I am just wrong altogether, in which case comparable examples of low-grade Bush Administration errata which were ballooned up by rascally, political-advantage-seeking Democratic party theatrics into Unprecedentedly Horrors Unlike Anything This Country Had Ever Confronted and which Brought America To Its Lowest Moral Standing In History would clear the matter right up.

Third, as you go about demonstrating to me (as Mr. Greenwald asserts) that the Benghaaaaaazification of Benghazi is merely standard-issue, political-eye-poking of the kind that "both sides" do all the time by finding me comparable examples of low-grade Bush Administration errata which were ballooned up by rascally, political-advantage-seeking Democratic parlor tricks into Unprecedentedly Horrors Unlike Anything This Country Had Ever Confronted  and which Brought  America To Its Lowest Moral Standing In History...

...perhaps you could begin your search between the covers of a couple of best-selling books by a gentleman named "Glenn Greenwald" who, after becoming aware of the existence of American politics halfway thought the Bush Administration, penned two very fine tomes -- A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency and  How Would A Patriot Act? Defending American Values From A President Run Amok -- which both argue very persuasively that Bush Administration scandals were indeed unprecedented in their awfulness,.  

Quotes from Mr. Greenwald's books like this one
…some of the most amoral and ethically monstrous policies, justified as necessary as a means to achieve a morally imperative end. The Bush presidency, awash in moralistic rhetoric, has ushered in some of the most extremist, previously unthinkable and profoundly un-American practices—from indefinite, lawless detentions, to the use of torture, to bloody preventive wars of choice, to the abduction of innocent people literally off the street or from their homes, to radical new theories designed to vest in the president the power to break the law. 
These measures were pursued not despite the moralistic roots of the president’s agenda, but because of them. Those who believe that they are on the path of righteousness, who are crusaders for the objective Good, will frequently become convinced that there can be no limitations on the weapons used to achieve their ends. The moral imperative of their agenda justifies—even requires—all steps undertaken to fulfill it. As the president ceaselessly proclaimed the Goodness at the heart of America’s destiny and its role in the world, his actions have resulted in an almost full-scale destruction of America’s moral credibility in almost every country and on every continent. The same president who has insisted that core moralism drive him has brought America to its lowest moral standing in history.
and this one
Bush violated FISA [...] because he wanted to violate the law in order to establish the general 'principle' that he was not bound by the law, to show that he has the power to break the law, that he is more powerful than the law.
and this one
The NSA eavesdropping scandal, at its core, is not an eavesdropping scandal. It is a lawbreaking scandal, and it is unlike anything this country has confronted before.
and this one
A president who is burdened with a failed and unpopular war, and who has lost the trust of the country, simply can no longer govern. He is destined to become as much a failure as his war.
and this one
I never imagined that such a thing could happen in modern America—that a president would claim the right to order American citizens imprisoned with no charges and without the right to a trial. In China, the former Soviet Union, Iran, and countless other countries, the government can literally abduct its citizens and imprison them without a trial. But that cannot happen in the United States—at least it never could before....
and this one
What I discovered, to my genuine amazement and alarm, is that these actions had their roots in sweeping, extremist theories of presidential power that many administration officials had been advocating for years before George Bush was even elected.
and this one
The use of torture as an interrogation tool by the United States is yet another by-product of the president’s belief, grounded in the infamous Yoo memorandum, that nothing can limit the president’s decisions with regard to terrorism. The president is free to use torture, opined Yoo, regardless of whether it is illegal under the laws of the United States.
and this one
It defies credibility to claim that the president, in October 2001, ordered eavesdropping in violation of FISA because he perceived that the law imposed too many barriers to necessary eavesdropping. After all, he ordered this illegal eavesdropping at exactly the time, in October 2001, when Congress was amending FISA in accordance with the president’s requests, and the president was telling the nation that, as a result of those amendments, he had all the tools he needed to monitor the communications of terrorists. 
The president plainly broke the law, which is why the only defense available to him and his supporters is to claim that he has the right to do so.
and this one
As Congress devised the law, the FISA court plays two critical, independent functions—not just warrant approval but also, more critically, judicial oversight. FISA’s truly meaningful check on abuse in the eavesdropping process is that the president is prevented from engaging in improper eavesdropping because he knows that every instance of eavesdropping he orders will be known to a federal judge—a high-level judicial officer who is not subject to the president’s authority and whose constitutional duties are separate from the president’s. 
It is precisely that safeguard which President Bush simply abolished by fiat. In effect, President Bush changed the law all by himself, replacing the federal judges with his own employees at the NSA and abolishing the approval and warrant process entirely. 
To describe that conduct is to illustrate its jaw-dropping lawlessness and corruption.  It ought to go without saying that, at least in America, the president does not have the right to unilaterally change laws that he does not like. He cannot simply abolish his least favorite provisions and replace them with ones he likes better.
and this one
There is no time in America—whether in peace or at war—when the president has the powers that the Bush administration has attempted to seize.
are all easily available at an internet near you.

Fourth, in case you had any doubt what "Benghaaaazi!" is really all about, fresh off of Karl Rove's killing room floor, here comes the first ad of the 2016 Presidential race:

 

Bon appétit!

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Both Sides Duet, Part One Million


A Masterpiece of the False Equivalence Genre

Nominees at all levels of Washington’s bureaucracy — 117 of them in all, including cabinet secretaries, judges and members of obscure oversight boards — are facing delays. Just last week, the Senate confirmed David Medine, the president’s choice to lead the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The time between his nomination and confirmation was 510 days. Every Republican voted no.
The shrinking number of senators from both parties who are willing to cross the aisle and the growing appeal of adding a “no” vote on a presidential nominee to a political résumé have contributed to the slowdown.
BOTH SIDES BOTH SIDES BOTH SIDES DO IT! 
This doesn't even make sense. Precisely how are Democrats supposed to cross the aisle and vote for a Democratic president's nominees? Are Democrats supposed to vote for Republican ... what, Obamacare repeals, in order to prove to Republicans that they're willing to cross the aisle, so that Republicans can cross the aisle on other things, because common courtesy is binding right now, and doing something nice and generous for others totally means the other person will always and forever do something nice for you, because that's how that always works.
Bending over backwards to make sure nobody gets upset at a story that seems to place blame on anyone produces a story that blames everyone, and therefore the reader gets the impression that this is all just a big impossible mess with no solution because everybody in Washington is such an intractible asshole...
Ever since Bill Clinton's penis retired, this is the only story our media is allowed to tell and they have been slavering for some real, juicy, Impeach-A-Democrat fake scandal to masturbate over since the Bush Regime -- an entire administration built out of failure, scandal, fraud, trason and incompetence which they helped to engineer -- left town.

Which is why Benghazi is starting to show up in their sentences: they can finally get back to begging for the approval of Big Conservative Daddy 
... 
Calling last year's deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya the "most egregious cover-up in American history," Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) predicted Thursday that President Barack Obama will soon face calls of impeachment. 
“Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate and all the rest of them — this … is going to go down as the most serious, the most egregious cover-up in American history,” Inhofe said during an appearance on The Rusty Humphries Show...
by punching the righteous fuck out of some damn hippies.

And of course, they're gonna get by with a little help from some friends.
Gonna get high-high-high with a little help from some friends.