The last 100 days - an agenda of destruction

While Barack Obama's victory is giving many Americans a vision of hope for his first 100 days, the Bush administration is busy trying to wreak as much havoc on civil liberties, the environment, abortion rights as it can.

A sample:

Last month, Attorney General Michael Mukasey rushed out new guidelines for the F.B.I. that permit agents to use chillingly intrusive techniques to collect information on Americans even where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

In coming weeks, we expect the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a final rule that would weaken a program created by the Clean Air Act, which requires utilities to install modern pollution controls when they upgrade their plants to produce more power.

Soon after the election, Michael Leavitt, the secretary of health and human services, is expected to issue new regulations aimed at further limiting women’s access to abortion, contraceptives and information about their reproductive health care options.  Existing law allows doctors and nurses to refuse to participate in an abortion. These changes would extend the so-called right to refuse to a wide range of health care workers and activities including abortion referrals, unbiased counseling and provision of birth control pills or emergency contraception, even for rape victims. 

I suppose when your approval rating is already under 25%, you might as well just flip the bird to the 75%.    I can't wait to see who gets a pardon. 

Bernanke: pass this bailout or a recession is coming

Top story:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke bluntly warned reluctant lawmakers Tuesday they risk a recession with higher unemployment and increased home foreclosures if they fail to pass the Bush administration's $700 billion plan to bail out the financial industry.

Hmm.  The administration comes up with a plan that is getting a lot of skepticism, wants it passed in a hurry and with little guarantee that it can solve the crisis.   Sound familiar?  Let's flash back to 2002:

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms.

...[Condoleezza] Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

That kind of talk lying led to six years in Iraq with no clear strategy and a multi hundred billion dollar price tag.  Ready to bring our Iraq strategy home?

Lipstick on a pig

I'll let Obama respond to this latest example of "phony outrage":

If you heard about the New Yorker cartoon

Then you must watch this video (hat tip to Shadoweyes):

"Military Analysts" means "Pentagon lackeys"

A New York Times investigation has uncovered that those generals you see on CNN aren't just post-career pundits, but are often in bed with the Pentagon publicity machine. Just how cozy is that relationship?

Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”

And the Pentagon strategy was worthy of the greatest psyops efforts of our time.

• These analysts want a business relationship with the Pentagon. Many of these ex-soldiers are responsible for drumming up business for defense contractors. Being cozy is their job.
• The analysts continue to be loyal to the Pentagon, from their careers in the military.
  
• The Pentagon provides the analysts with regular talking points briefings, including at least 18 meetings with the Secretary of Defense. The briefings include the sharing of classified information.
• The Pentagon has flown them to Iraq and given the analysts carefully orchestrated tours to enable them to push the administration's talking points.

Of course, nothing is done right in the Bush administration if it's not a secret:

The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.

And the analysts weren't just offering their opinion on the skewed reality shoveled to them by the Pentagon. They were toeing the line. Or else.

When [retired marine colonel and analyst Mr. Cowan] told Bill O’Reilly that the United States was “not on a good glide path right now” in Iraq, the repercussions were swift. Mr. Cowan said he was “precipitously fired from the analysts group” for this [2005] appearance.

Just another reason to be thankful that the Constitution puts a civilian as commander-in-chief. Now we just need to elect an honest one.

Two words from political theater: denounce, renounce

Bill Clinton says something dumb. The media wants to know if Hillary denounces him. Does she denounce him vigorously enough? How much vigor was there?

Obama's pastor says something dumb. The media wants to know if he renounces the words. The man himself. The church. Pastors. God.

The denounce/renounce game is stupid:

This denouncing and renouncing game is simply not serious. It is a media-staged theater, produced not in response to genuine concerns...but in response to the needs of a news cycle. First you do the outrage (did you see what X said?), then you put the question to the candidate (do you hereby denounce and renounce?), then you have a debate on the answer (Did he go far enough? Has she shut her husband up?), and then you do endless polls that quickly become the basis of a new round.

Get over it. I want to know how we're going to get out of Iraq, shore up our efforts in Afghanistan, rebuilding the American image abroad, provide universal health care, balance the budget, protect our borders, respect our immigrants, make college affordable, reduce carbon emissions, and save the whales.

Who's electable? Only the election can tell

A nice essay on the bane of "electability" in the campaign primary season. Ron Klain notes that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, makes voters into pundits, and costs many qualified candidates a fair race.

He also blames Nader voters for the 2000 election results, contradicting his implied assertion that people should vote for the candidate who's the best fit for them.

Al Franken brings some fresh air to the latest Iraq diversion

If you have been listening to Republicans for the past few days, the most important national issue is not the increasing quagmire in Iraq, is not children's health insurance, is not mental health parity. No, if you've been listening to Republicans you believe that the national priority is condemning a political ad in the liberal/commie New York Times. Sometimes it takes a humorist to see the humor in the situation (when BNL isn't available):

It is, of course, ridiculous that the United States Senate spent a day debating and voting on a resolution condemning an advertisement while our troops remained in Iraq, fighting a war with no end. And it's doubly ridiculous that [Senator] Coleman, of all people, is still playing politics with this issue.

So what's the appropriate dialogue for a nation at war?

There are more than 160,000 troops currently serving in Iraq. We should honor their service by providing them with the best possible medical care when they return. We should honor their sacrifice by refusing to allow this president to keep them there in the middle of a civil war. And we should honor them by taking seriously the difficult debate about the best way, or at least the least bad way, to end our engagement in Iraq.

It's shameful it takes a satirist to get us serious about this war.

Touche

It's always amusing to catch your political opponents in the "lie." It's even more fun to catch an asshole like Bill O'Reilly at it:

Bill O'Reilly:

I don't do personal attacks here

Reality:

The IU researchers found that O'Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.

Political Theater

In response to the passage through the U.S. House of an appropriations bill for Iraq that includes a deadline for withdrawal, President Bush accused Democrats of "political theater" in addition to his usual "you don't support the troops."

Of course, President Bush is no stranger to political theater, when it suits his purpose...

Image grabbed from Google Image Search