VIDEO: Jim Greer takes credit for changing Obama's education speech

By GottaLaff



This blathering, paranoid fool actually tries to take credit for changing President Obama's speech. Shorter Greer:

--Stay focused! Obama's speech may be fine now, thanks to us fine Rushpublics, but YESTERDAY it indoctrinated our kids!

--Obama's speech focuses on education, not the economy! It provides... LESSON PLANS! ::sputter spittle schmuggle:: Presidents can't do that! (Malveaux nails him for lying about that at about 1:42)

--It's all a Socialist conspiracy, a conspiracy I tells ya!

--My kids WILL be watching Obama's speech. Every kid should. But had it been LAST WEEK'S speech....

--If it hadn't been for us, by tomorrow night your kids would belong to Barry Hussein Obama! (Psst! He's black, I just know he is!)

This was my favorite part, though:

"When you ask students to write a letter to the president on how we can help you with your new ideas, that is leading the students in an effort to push the president's agenda," Greer told CNN's Suzanne Malveaux on The Situation Room. "Now that the White House got their hand in the cookie jar caught, they changed everything. They redid the lesson plans."

Ooopsies, did little Jimmy forget about this (relevant snippet starts at 1:13) when he faux-fretted about Obama sneaking nefarious stuff by the children's parents and right smack dab into the classroom?

President George H.W. Bush:

"Write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals."

Why yes, apparently he did.

When Newt Gingrich is the voice of reason, things have gotten bad.

"Will there ever be another Walter Cronkite?": A rant

By GottaLaff

Since last night's news of Walter Cronkite's death, news actor after news actor (I refuse to call them news anchors or newspeople) has asked repeatedly, "Will there ever be another Walter Cronkite?"

No. There won't. There was only one. But let's get past that part and on to the ramifications of the Big Question that these news models feel compelled to ask.

Will there ever be another Cronkite? EVER? Unless there was a secret cloning, then no. But time doesn't stop in the year 2009. Time marches on. There is this thing called "the future". Babies are born, the sun keeps rising and setting, days and nights continue their cycle.

And so, there will be another exceptional news person who will be revered... one day. Because that's the way it is, to borrow from the exceptional news person who gave us that phrase.

The question is, how can that happen with the state of news at it is? When "Uncle Walter" was the go-to news guy, there were only three networks. The news cycle was certainly longer than 24 hours. But most importantly, the news was not yet commercialized.

Today we have sensationalism, not news. We have propaganda, not news. We have salesmanship and performances, not news... with very few exceptions.

Ever listen to the delivery of our news models? They all seem to have gone to the same classes at News Acting for Dummeez U. The cookie-cutter style of most news personalities on the Tee Vee Machine is filled with flourishes, dramatic.... .... ..... pauses, and studied emotional readings, peppered with "off the cuff" giggles and/or Furrowed Brow, Grim-Faced Seriousness.

Walter Cronkite was dedicated, genuine, and therefore, believable. That's why he was referred to as "the most trusted man in America".

Today's news models are deliberately and self-consciously earnest... when they think it's called-for. They're upbeat and cheery when they believe it's appropriate. I don't trust them, nor do I trust their employers. I don't appreciate the news being sold to me. I just want it told to me.

I'll end my rant with Walter Cronkite's own words. He said the role of journalism is not to tell Americans what they want to hear but what they need to know as citizens -- because, he said, "journalism is what we need to make democracy work."

Amen.

Two former Bushies don't back claims of Bush/Israel "understanding"

By GottaLaff

Hear that ripping sound? That's the sound of BushCo continuing to shred itself in public:

Two key Bush administration officials — Condoleezza Rice and former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley — are refusing to lend their support to the claim by Israeli officials, and some on the right, that there was an “understanding” between Israel and the Bush administration that Israel could proceed with certain types of settlement expansion. Spokespeople for both Rice and Hadley tell our reporter, Beth Marlowe, that they will be declining to comment.

Ri-i-p.

Pentagon v. Dep't. of Justice: New Rift Opens Over Rights of Detainees

By GottaLaff

Agence France-Preese/Getty Images

I'm bumping and updating. Here is an interesting e-mail response to this piece that I got from an old pal who serves in the military. We correspond from time to time:

There is a battle on going between the lawyers over at the Pentagon and the DOJ as to which protections if any should be extended to the detainees; it's window dressing to give the appearance that detainee's rights are seriously being discussed. In short it is all bullshit so that Faux News can say see, you are coddling the terrorists on the one hand; and the liberals will see serious discussion as fundamental rights is in play. In the end it really is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic system of justice they both want.

What both sides (Pentagon/DOJ) want to avoid is Federal District Court because they will lose control in a real system judicial system. What is left is Military Court Martial which also has established rules so neither desire that; so what each side wants is to appear concerned but in control.

Remember under a Military Commission process the DOJ will be the prosecutors (of course there will be few military prosecutors for appearances, but the DOJ will the call the shots {the really concerned ones in this story}), while developing the rules of evidence and controlling what evidence is revealed to the defense. I believe this story was first given to the WSJ to say hey "they want the worst of worst given rights and living in your neighborhood." It really is just window dressing between to competing groups who have the same goal, "develop a system around factually weak cases, and then claim it was fair."

And let's not forget who owns the WSJ.

Original post:

Picking up on a link Paddy posted earlier, at least it's a positive that this subject is getting more attention. As you know it's become a cause of mine. Here's the latest wrinkle in the Pentagon v. DoJ:

The Justice Department has determined that detainees tried by military commissions in the U.S. can claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through coercive interrogations, officials said.

The conclusion, explained in a confidential memorandum whose contents were shared with The Wall Street Journal, could alter significantly the way the commissions operate -- and has created new divisions among the agencies responsible for overseeing the commissions.

Defense Department officials warn that the Justice Department position could reduce the chance of convicting some defendants. Military prosecutors have said involuntary statements comprise the lion's share of their evidence against dozens of Guantanamo prisoners who could be tried.

So Defense is unhappy because coerced statements can't be used to convict their abused clients? Did I get that right?

The Obama Justice Department's view is a sharp turn from that of the Bush administration, which argued detainees have no constitutional rights. It isn't clear how the Obama administration will act, but the Justice Department's legal counsel's office traditionally has the last word on constitutional interpretation in the executive branch. The White House declined to comment.

The dispute over what rights military commission defendants can claim has intensified as President Barack Obama tries to implement his decision to close the Guantanamo prison by January. [...]

Since 2004, several aspects of the commissions and their related detention system have been invalidated by the Supreme Court. A Justice Department task force has been seeking ways to try prisoners by military commission that would be more likely to survive further constitutional challenge. The task force is scheduled to complete its work by July 21. [...]

In a memorandum issued May 4, David Barron, acting assistant attorney general, said the office believes there is a "serious risk" that federal courts "would adopt a constitutional due process approach" when evaluating military commission trials, people familiar with the memo say.

Mr. Barron advised that federal courts were unlikely to require strict adherence to Bill of Rights provisions spelling out specific procedures, such as the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right, or the Miranda warning, which the Supreme Court imposed in 1966 to ensure compliance with the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney.

But Mr. Barron advised that courts were likely to view the use of coerced statements to convict and punish defendants as violating any definition of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which courts have cited in establishing a baseline of fundamental rights. As a result, some officials believe a legislative fix to the Military Commissions Act should include additional rights for defendants in order to lower the chances courts would strike it down.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said Friday he has included language in a pending defense authorization bill to make commissions more closely resemble courts-martial. A 2006 Supreme Court opinion suggested military commissions could be lawful if their deviations from "court-martial practice" were justified by "practical need." The text is expected to be released this week.

Now, think: Why is David Barron handling all of this....

Mr. Barron, a professor on leave from Harvard Law School, is in charge while Mr. Obama's nominee to head the legal-counsel office, Dawn Johnsen, awaits Senate confirmation. Mr. Barron's conclusion has met Pentagon opposition. "We believe that military commissions, as distinct from other courts, are designed to not provide constitutional rights," Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, the Obama administration's chief military prosecutor, said in an interview.

The one exception, he said, was that created by the Supreme Court last year, when it ruled the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutionally stripped Guantanamo detainees of habeas corpus, a legal proceeding to challenge unlawful detention. [...]

"There is a school of thought...that if they actually convene these things in the [U.S.], the courts will quickly find that all the due process constitutional stuff we deal with in criminal courts will be applicable," said another military official familiar with the talks. "The main push for this argument comes out of" the Justice Department and the Office of Legal Counsel, the official said. "It hasn't gotten a lot of traction with other folks."

"Constitutional stuff"?

This person said Pentagon officials preferred not to provide defendants additional rights unless courts forced them to.

What do Gitmo lawyers say about all this?

On the other side, criminal defense lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees say that simply recognizing due process, without other constitutional rights, will not fix a system they contend is stacked against defendants. "The minute they're making a distinction of 'what we can get away with'...they are creating something of dubious legal viability," said Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, a Naval Reserve lawyer appointed to represent alleged Sept. 11 conspirator Ramzi Binalshibh.

By trying to patch a system that has been beset for years by internal disarray and court setbacks, "they are buying themselves more legal problems," she said. Rather than the "swift and certain justice" that President Obama has promised, it "means years of appeals when we're challenging all of these issues -- most of which have already been resolved" for trials in courts-martial or federal court, she said.

What a mess. It's no wonder Lt. Col. Barry Wingard and his client, Fayiz al-Kandari, are so frustrated.

If you'd like to scroll through every post I've written on this subject, most of them eye-openers, please go here. That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you use Twitter, the hashtag is #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

Richard Armitage On Torture: I Should Have Resigned From Bush Administration

By GottaLaff

Too little, too late, too easy to say now:

ARMITAGE: We'd lost the discussion about the terminology and the Geneva protections. Did not know, to the best of my knowledge anyone in the Department, that torture was going on.

LEWIS: But you suspected it. You must've.

ARMITAGE: We did know that we lost the terminology question in Geneva. We did know of course because the [International Committee of the Red Cross] would come to see me and Secretary Powell. We certainly knew that they had suspicions.

LEWIS: So when you knew that the administration of which you were a part was departing from the Geneva Conventions and sidelining them, why didn't you quit?

ARMITAGE: In hindsight maybe I should've. But in those positions you see how many more battles you have. You maybe fool yourself. You say how much worse would x, y, or z be if I weren't here trying to do it? So torture is a matter of principle as far as I'm concerned. I hope, had I known about it at the time I was serving, I would've had the courage to resign.

Today's lesson, as taught by Professor Armitage: How to mangle the theory of relativity.

VIDEO: Bill O'Reilly -- who doesn't "want to overstate this" -- compares Pelosi to Marie Antoinette

By GottaLaff

Billo the Falafel Clown and Laura Ingraham, together in one video? Get out the Pepto. Seriously:



Isn't that cute how a hostile, self-indulgent millionaire, who could more easily be compared to Marie Antoinette than most, is finding fault with a public official whose security depends on transportation like, you know, an airplane-- that the Bush White House provided to her.

That occurred when the Bush administration "instituted a policy for the Speaker of the House, for security reasons, to travel on a military plane."

Not to mention, this story is about two years old. This is all they've got?

Billo Antoinette: Worst! Person! In the Wor-r-r-l-ld!

All 41 Senate Republicans Seek Veto Power Over Obama's Federal Judicial Appointments

By GottaLaff

My Buzzflash Buddy sent this one to me. It's a real pip:

A letter signed by all 41 Senate Republicans was sent to the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy yesterday in which the GOP demanded inclusion in, and ultimately veto power over, the confirmation of the president's judicial nominees.

The GOP wants... veto power? Say wha-a-a? After the last 8 years of rubber stamping Bush's splendorificraptastic picks, and now they want, ahem, bipartisanship, uh, I mean "senatorial courtesy", er, make that a filibuster?

The demand was a sharp turn-around for Republicans, who had for the past eight years been calling for the swift confirmation of then-President George W. Bush's appointees.[...]

But the GOP's request for veto power of nominees before the judiciary even debates a particular appointment is far from the norm.

The letter gives lip service to themes of bipartisanship [...] However, what they demand is nothing short of minority control. The letter states that if Republicans "are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states" they will "not support moving forward," presumably threatening a filibuster.

The phrase "senatorial courtesy" may sound better than "threat of filibuster," but as Politico points out, "the letter is an opening salvo in what could be a partisan battle in the Obama years." [...] The letter emphasizes the idea of working together, when the true intent is more threat than peace offering. [...]

Yet, back in 2005, Kyl was firmly on the opposite side of this argument:

"This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people."

[...] It appears White House Counsel Gregory Craig has begun his outreach to Republicans in the Senate over judicial appointees, but it is unclear whether the plan outlined in the GOP Conference letter will affect the nomination process.

There's much more here on the Ob-suck-tionist Party.

Bailed-out firms reframe the B word (bonus)

By GottaLaff

Get a load of this (and it is a load):

During an internal conference call last week, advisers were warned not to call the awards bonuses because it would cause a PR headache:

“There will be a retention award. Please do not call it a bonus,” said James Gorman, co-president of Morgan Stanley. “It is not a bonus. It is an award. And it recognizes the importance of keeping our team in place as we go through this integration.”

Please do not call my middle finger a flip-off. It is not a flip-off. It is an expression of targeted passion.

Definition of the Day

Found this over at Steve's place and had to share-

From the Unabridged Dictionary of Republican-Speak:

Bipartisanship - Democrats give republicans everything they want.

True Bipartisanship - Democrats give republicans everything they want & apologize for not having done so sooner.

Nail meet hammer.

The Daily Show- Guantanamo Baywatch - The Final Season

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Guantanamo Baywatch - The Final Season

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Once again, comedian Jon Stewart nails it.