The Torture/"Rape" Photos: Crime v. Cover-up

By GottaLaff

I originally posted in detail about this here.

Digby, in part:

So, we don't know if the pictures Taguba refers to are the pictures which were covered under thee ACLU's FOIA request, and whether they still exist. We do know that accusations of rape were investigated under both the Taguba and Fay reports, but can't be sure of the disposition of them. And again, we don't know if these pictures refer to those specific allegations or if they pertain to different incidents. The Pentagon denies that there are any pictures which depict these heinous acts. In other words, confusion still reigns and suspicions run high.

The administration claims that it withheld the FOIA pictures because they were more of the same and would inflame anti-American hatred which, as I said, always seemed contradictory. And now it appears that they may actually show something much worse than we've seen --- and the administration looks as if it's covering that up by saying that there's nothing new. Perhaps they aren't, but their conflicting statements and refusal to release the pictures quite naturally raises these questions.

The administration needs to realize that it can't avoid this issue even if it wants to and it's not useful to try to finesse it or kick the issue down the road. There are simply too many lies under the bridge --- it's impossible to take the government at its word. If sexual assaults beyond those which we already know about and saw evidence of (and which were prosecuted) happened, then it will come out. The only question is whether it will be a drip, drip, drip of toxic revelations and speculations that will continue to poison this country and its relationship to the world or whether it will be an official, transparent accounting of what happened. Either way, there's no running away from it.

Please go read the whole thing. Digby addresses my own struggles with this, and my tendency toward getting this out in the open (not literally, there are ways to tell the story without blasting photos all over the airwaves).

I've maintained that the ObamAdministration needs to take control of the message, and not give the appearance of hiding anything. The skill and wisdom with which they do that will determine the way the world reacts, especially considering the horrific revelations have already leaked out, and inevitably, the photos themselves will, too.

RNC fumbles Sotomayor talking points

By GottaLaff

What?! The Rushpublics fumbled something? How out of character of them:

Whoops. The Republican National Committee (RNC) has apparently inadvertently released its list of talking points on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Oh dear. Oh my. Oh dear and oh my. What a bloopery mess:

Here are the talking points:

o President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is an important decision that will have an impact on the United States long after his administration.

o Republicans are committed to a fair confirmation process and will reserve judgment until more is known about Judge Sotomayor's legal views, judicial record and qualifications.

o Until we have a full view of the facts and comprehensive understanding of Judge Sotomayor's record, Republicans will avoid partisanship and knee-jerk judgments - which is in stark contrast to how the Democrats responded to the Judge Roberts and Alito nominations.

o To be clear, Republicans do not view this nomination without concern. Judge Sotomayor has received praise and high ratings from liberal special interest groups. Judge Sotomayor has also said that policy is made on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

o Republicans believe that the confirmation process is the most responsible way to learn more about her views on a number of important issues.

o The confirmation process will help Republicans, and all Americans, understand more about judge Sotomayor's thoughts on the importance of the Supreme Court's fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law.

o Republicans are the minority party, but our belief that judges should interpret rather than make law is shared by a majority of Americans.

o Republicans look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor's legal views and to determining whether her views reflect the values of mainstream America.

President Obama on Judicial Nominees

o Liberal ideology, not legal qualification, is likely to guide the president's choice of judicial nominees.

o Obama has said his criterion for nominating judges would be their "heart" and "empathy."

o Obama said he believes Supreme Court justices should understand the Court's role "to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process."

o Obama has declared: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old-and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

Additional Talking Points

o Justice Souter's retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for:

o Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;

o Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;

o Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely secularizing the public square;

o Abolishing the death penalty;

o Judicial micromanagement of the government's war powers.

Hilarious on so many levels, pathetic on others. But then, you already knew that.

Of course, Scalia, Thomas, Alito aren't activist at all.

Leaked memo: House Democrats Target 29 GOP Seats

By GottaLaff

Via Taegan:

According to a leaked memo, DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) plans to target 29 House Republicans from districts won by Barack Obama last November.

Democrats privately say "they expect to lose a handful of seats to the GOP in next year's midterms and the memo acknowledges that the average midterm loss for a ruling party in a midterm is 30," reports Politico.

"Nonetheless, he paints a picture of an unusually unpredictable cycle and thinks Dems could do much better than average if President Obama's popularity stays sky-high and the party targets vulnerable Rs."

Oliver Willis Tweeted: Good news for John McCain.

Obama not wavering on Daschle

By GottaLaff

President Obama is standing by Tom Daschle, but Republicans are trying to take full advantage. I've already posted some of this in my original post here, but more details have emerged:

The White House said Saturday that Obama remains committed to Daschle’s nomination. A West Wing official twice stressed that Obama is dedicated to enduring the fallout—now the second politically embarrassing case of a high-level appointee failing to pay taxes.

“Every nomination has bumps along the road but they handle it,” said this official.

Sources close to Daschle said they’ve gotten reassurances from the White House that Obama was not wavering.

“They knew it was coming and they’d have to take a hit”—and in this case, “a bad first-day hit”—said a person familiar with Daschle’s thinking.

For now anyway, there is little evidence that Daschle’s tax delinquency is fatal to his nomination. Democrats have called a Senate Finance Committee meeting for Monday to discuss the impact on his prospects. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) endorsed him yesterday, saying, "I believe Tom's reputation for integrity will assure that he will be confirmed by the Senate Finance Committee and the full Senate."

While Republican response has been muted, party members are signaling that the case of not one but two tax scofflaws on Obama’s staff is just too good to pass up—a chance to puncture Obama’s squeaky-clean image, particularly at a time when he is scolding Wall Street for about the need for greater personal responsibility. [...]

Republicans have yet to mount a serious challenge to Daschle – but clearly hope to puncture what they see as the hypocrisy embedded in Obama’s tough-on-Wall Street rhetoric and Democratic claims of a brand new day in Washington. [...]

But the response to Daschle's tax issues from the Hill has also been positive.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid quickly issued a strong statement in support of Daschle when the story broke Friday night and other Democratic senators have followed.

That Daschle served in the collegial body for 18 years, an advantage Geithner didn’t enjoy, could help him survive the ordeal. [...]

Administration officials believe it was Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee who leaked the information, which Daschle had supplied earlier this month, after getting word that the former South Dakota Senator was to meet with the committee on Monday. The idea, suggest these officials, was to get the story in circulation over the weekend and make it Topic A for the Sunday morning news shows as an embarrassing lead up to the Monday meeting.

Daschle also has two important things working against him that Geithner did not.

First off, Geithner himself — particularly if Republicans or even some Democrats decide they just can’t look the other way twice on tax issues.

Geithner also benefited from the belief among many senators that the economic crisis was just too serious – and he was just too qualified – to let an old-fashioned “nanny gate”-style issue scuttle his nomination and delay action.

Daschle might not get such benefit of the doubt, either on his uniqueness as the man to be nation’s health czar, or on the dangers of sending Obama back to the drawing board for another nominee, even if that takes time. [...]

“We knew that we were going to have to survive 24 hours on this,” said a source close to Daschle, indicating they believed they had.

We'll see.

Gramm-pa McCain Did Not Disclose Keating Business Deal To Investigators

By GottaLaff

Ethics, schmethics. Who needs 'em when you're running for president anyway:

The New Republic published an explosive story Saturday evening detailing how John McCain, in all likelihood, leaked information to investigators of the Keating Five scandal that was designed to help his image at the expense of the other four Senators involved.

If the allegation is true -- and TNR makes a healthy case as to its veracity -- it would mean that McCain violated Senate rules and could have been expelled from that body.

"All five senators -- including McCain -- had testified under oath and under the U.S. penal code that the leaks did not come from their camps," Sahil Mahtani reports. "The leaks were also prohibited by rules of the Senate Ethics Committee; according to the rules of the Senate, anyone caught leaking such information could face expulsion from the body."

But this is not be the only instance in which McCain defied the rules of the Senate when seeking to absolve himself of any wronging in the Keating affair. Public records in Arizona reveal that the Senator was also dishonest in discussing the extent of financial transactions he and his family had with the disgraced Savings and Loans chief.

In a three-and-a-half hour interview with investigators on February 13, 1990, McCain told the Ethics Committee that "other than the Fountain Square project [a property deal in which Keating and McCain's family were jointly invested] there were no other financial dealings between him or his family and ACC [American Continental Corporation]."

This, it seems, was not true.

More here.

Bush "secretly declassified" 2002 NIE to leak to reporters

By GottaLaff

Scottie claims that George Bush admitted that he was the source of the leak of the 2002 NIE. Thom Hartmann was all over this today. He is convinced that this finally gives the House grounds for impeachment, and that Scott McLellan is the next John Dean:

During his “Today” show appearance this morning with host Meredith Viera, former press secretary Scott McClellan confirmed that President Bush himself had authorized the leak of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq:

MCCLELLAN: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.

VIERA: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?

MCCLELLAN: Actually, I did. I talk about the conversation we had. … And I told the President that that’s what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said “yeah, I did.” And I was kinda taken aback.

You can watch the video here. I was unable to load it.

"Yeah, I did." Yeah, he did. Impeach. Finally. Please... before he starts that Iran war he's always wanted.