Sunday Roundup
* The cost of sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan may cost a heck of a lot more than previously thought: As much as $54 billion. Refreshingly, officials say cost is weighing on their mind as they deliberate over the way forward.
* The New York Times theorizes that some Republicans may be wary of looking inconsistent in calling for a pricey troop increase “after criticizing Mr. Obama for his spending.”
* Benen is skeptical.
* David Axelrod: Republicans criticizing Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan should pause to recall what happened the last time a president rushed a major decision about war.
* Hillary says on ABC’s “This Week” that Obama’s Afghan decisionmaking process has been “extraordinary,” adds that “the majority of Americans will know that this president has gone the extra mile” to “make sure that whatever decision he makes is in the best interest of our country.”
* Rudy Giuliani says trying suspected 9/11 terrorists puts New Yorkers at unnecessary risk.
* Which puts him at odds with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who apparently believes New York cops are up to the job of protecting New Yorkers.
* Sam Stein scores internal McCain campaign emails deflating more of Sarah Palin’s claims.
* Palin’s book scores a long review in, of all places, The Times.
* The Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s payback campaign against Blue Dog and moderate Dems who voted against health care bill ratchets up local media pressure in South Dakota, Florida, and North Carolina. This campaign is all about letting Dems know there will be consequences for a No vote on the final bill.
* And here’s the shocker of the day: Readers of the Drudge Report are angry with news outlets for not giving Obama’s “low” bow to the Japanese emperor more media coverage.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Sarah Palin’s response to the KSM et. al. trial in New York followed by Spencer Ackerman’s commentary.
“The trial will afford Mohammed the opportunity to grandstand and make use of his time in front of the world media to rally his disgusting terrorist cohorts. It will also be an insult to the victims of 9/11, as Mohammed will no doubt use the opportunity to spew his hateful rhetoric in the same neighborhood in which he ruthlessly cut down the lives of so many Americans.”
“What’s an actual insult to the victims of 9/11 is the idea that America is not strong enough to withstand the blatherings of a mass murderer. For me, the prospect of KSM grandstanding at his trial falls into I-wish-a-motherfvcker-would territory. I want to hear how KSM builds a case against America, because everyone will hear how laughably conspiratorial and clownish it is. Think of what a cathartic moment it will be when America sees the face of the man considered to be UBL’s most efficient henchman and he delivers a pitiful harangue to a bank of cameras. No one will be emboldened to do anything but laugh. The only downside will be his inevitable discussion of how CIA operatives tortured him.”
http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/11/14/whos-afraid-of-khalid-shaikh-mohammed/
Hillary also said on ABC this morning something that might be very telling:
“I have made it clear that we’re not going
to be providing any civilian aid to Afghanistan unless we have a
certification that if it goes into the Afghan government in any form, that we’re
going to have ministries that we can hold accountable.”
““What’s an actual insult to the victims of 9/11 is the idea that America is not strong enough to withstand the blatherings of a mass murderer. For me, the prospect of KSM grandstanding at his trial falls into I-wish-a-motherfvcker-would territory. I want to hear how KSM builds a case against America, because everyone will hear how laughably conspiratorial and clownish it is.”
No kidding, Imsinca – it’s absurd for them to be so afraid of whatever KSM will say for the love of pete.
I said this yesterday and that’s all I can say about it – Manhattan is a terrible venue for the defense – it couldn’t be worse. People who want to see KSM fry should want to see him tried in Manhattan. He’s likely to fry no matter where he’s tried, but since I”m used to jurisdiction for crimes being where the crimes occurred, this whole thing only makes sense to me. Shouldn’t the community most directly affected be the community where he’s tried?
God the right makes everything so damned complicated for no reason.
My only issue with this critique of the right’s response is that it assumes that Palin, Rudy et al actually mean what they say.
In reality they’re demagoguing, so painting them as “giving in” to terrorism seems like it’s off base.
I was sorry to see that Daniel Pearl’s family feels the same way – that KSM will have a venue he can use as a soapbox. I don’t think that’s going to happen – the judge won’t let him and there’s no reason why he or she should let him.
lmsinca
I believe KSM and his pals were going to plead guilty in military court, a martyr thing, but the judge said no. So, I guess we’ll see how much fuss they will make in Federal court.
“So, I guess we’ll see how much fuss they will make in Federal court.”
Knowing federal judges,I can tell you how much – none. The judge won’t have it – I’ll bet any amount of money.
According to Quitter Palin, and Rudy, Bernard Kerik Would Make A Great Chief Of Homeland Security, Giuliani: We are not strong enough to handle trials, like Iraq is.
They tried Saddam Hussain, Chemical Ali, etc, in courts of law, but according to those Right Wing Chicken Hawks, the USA is too feeble a democracy to be able to conduct such trials.
“They tried Saddam Hussain, Chemical Ali, etc, in courts of law, ”
That’s a very damn good point, Liam. Is American democracy weaker than Iraqi democracy?
You can bet Rasmussen is busy polling us using it’s likely voter model skewed heavily Republican on if we should try these criminals on our soil right now and Greg will post the results and so it will come to be the mindless chatter of the chatterboxes that a majority of Americans, ignoring this is based off of the Rasmussen LV model, don’t want terrorists tried in the U.S.
The minority voice in power is busy fear mongering as we speak when instead, the majority voice should be out in front of this one with leadership saying we won’t back down and be afraid of trying these criminals in court. Instead of leadership, we’ve got Senators such as mine, Jim Webb, out there talking about how this will be a costly distraction.
I’ve written Webb at how disappointed I am in his statements. Not sure if it would do any good.
The cowardliness of the right on this issue is astounding since they act as such hawks when it comes to endless wars at all costs.
I would think now would be a good time for Obama to stand up and show some leadership on this issue and frame the message…but it doesn’t seem he won’t. Whoever is advising him, I wish would have him come out strong on this issue.
I think American’s are looking for some strong leadership right now on this.
Tena, since they don’t allow cameras in Federal court I wonder how our youtube and 24/7 news cycle society will handle the lack of coverage. I can’t wait to see KSM on his soapbox in an artist rendering.
Very odd. David Brooks calls Palin a joke and Qwen Ifil says women will be drawn to her story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/15/david-brooks-palins-a-jok_n_358315.html
Lots of people will be drawn to Quitter Palin’s story because:
Millions of people are often drawn to:
PULP FICTION.
Fear and scoring political points, things so deeply attuned to the GOP psyche that they can’t even defend the nation that they supposedly love from accusations of weakness when it comes to the rule of law. I laugh at them, they can try them right here next to me in NYC and then they can put them in facilities in my hometown in Texas for all I care. Why would I be afraid of them becoming “targets”, there is no history of attacks on prisons to break out or get revenge for convicted terrorists… we all know it is a waste of resources and lacks the big ideological message that is the goal of terrorism.
Great roundup today Greg, I think you’re framing of where the conversation stands on Afghanistan and the upcoming trials is exactly right… Republicans are going to be critical of anything this President does, period. They will shriek whether it is calling him weak for making up his own mind on how to proceed in Afghanistan, or how the independent DoJ (which they consider a political wing of the WH for some disgusting reason) has decided to actually try criminals for their crimes.
It is truly disheartening to know that when I hear complaints from the Republican party about what the other side is doing, I can rest assured that it will not be factually based argument nor even a principled one. I hope that they run themselves into the ground so that this nation can rediscover the benefits of what a battle of ideas can produce.
What’s even more astonishing is the argument being raised by right wing conservatives, ‘we can’t try them in Federal courts because some of the evidenced gained during “enhanced interrogations” would be inadmissible.
These same bozo’s need to step back every time they are busy cheerleading what the repercussions are to torturing suspects. You follow the law, you don’t run into these problems. Laws have been designed in ways not only to protect rights, they have been designed to protect yourself from **** like this from happening. You break them, and you end up with a big mess like we’ve got now.
But instead of reflecting, you’ve got baby Cheney out there saying Palin or whoever is the 2012 candidate needs to win to undo all the damage Obama is doing to our national security. I hope Obama makes this distinction very clear to the American public when the time comes.
Republicans are weak on the rule of law.
@Andy
“Very odd. David Brooks calls Palin a joke and Qwen Ifil says women will be drawn to her story.”
Brooks has generally not liked Palin once he realized she could never win a national election. Ifil’s comments, though, has to be one of the dumbest things I’ve heard in a long time. How on earth could she possibly believe that nonsense?
@Greg
“My only issue with this critique of the right’s response is that it assumes that Palin, Rudy et al actually mean what they say. In reality they’re demagoguing, so painting them as “giving in” to terrorism seems like it’s off base.”
It doesn’t matter whether they believe it or not. They are still saying those things publicly. I’d argue that they are not “giving in” to the terrorists by being afraid, but rather “enabling” the terrorists’ goals by going on national television and creating an unneeded panic about the situation.
“Giving in” would simply consist of them BEING afraid. But you said yourself, they aren’t. They are purposefully going on national TV and trying to CREATE FEAR. The best ally KSM has right now, when it comes to making Americans afraid, is the Republican party.
Mr. Sargent,
It would be nice if you could include in future posts what’s happening with changes in regulating the financial industry. I know there is a lot going on, including a new push on a immigration bill, but I would hate to see the regulatory story fly below the radar.
Thanks.
That’s north of $1.2M per troop. Makes ya wonder about turkeys like McCain who are so tight-fisted when it comes to soldiers’ salary and benefits.
Ok, my last post on Palin. I just couldn’t resist. From Ben Smith at Politico:
“Palin is responding to an unusually harsh takedown from the Associated Press of her book, which does, I think, at times blend the notions of fact-checking and analysis.
She writes:
We’ll keep setting the record straight, and we’ll keep reminding some in the media that Americans are very tired of their non-objective reporting. A great, recent post that accomplishes this is a Conservatives4Palin post. It’s got some nice fact checking included. As always, they did a great job holding some of the media accountable for spreading more misinformation and for making things up. You can read it here. Enjoy!”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/The_Palin_grassroots.html?showall
When she says “some in the media” she must mean Fox News, right?
“‘we can’t try them in Federal courts because some of the evidenced gained during “enhanced interrogations” would be inadmissible.”
They really are saying that?
Yeah, that’s the problem with torture – you don’t get one useful thing out of it. It’s just inflicting suffering for the sake of inflicting suffering.
That’s all it’s good for.
Michael Tomasky has a very good essay in the NYRB titled “Who Are the Blue Dog Democrats?” http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23432
“Ifil’s comments, though, has to be one of the dumbest things I’ve heard in a long time. How on earth could she possibly believe that nonsense?”
Totally agree. Ifill’s comment is particularly braindead, since women saw through Sarah Palin in nothing flat and as I recall, women voters didn’t like her by lare majorities.
We could see right through her.
Apparently, Gwen can’t.
large
Foster Kamer, @ Gawker, of La Palin’s book: A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering B U L L S H I T
O god, Kathleen – I’m falling sideways out of my chair laughing at that.
LOLOLOLOL…
IT’s A Staggering Work of Heartburn-inducing Bulls*h*i*t; or
“Sarah Reflux”
(that’s a play on “Rabbit Redux” by Updike; I just fear it’s so removed from the original no one would get it if I didn’t tell ya. LOL)
I don’t know if anyone posted this yet, but I loved it.
“Speaking at a press conference in Tokyo, with reporters pressing him about his decision last week to reject all four of the plans for Afghanistan that had been presented to him, President Obama gave some of the best answers explaining his decision in a matter of war that I’ve heard a United States president give in a long time.
At first, he answered reporters, saying that
“those who participated I think would acknowledge that it has been not a academic exercise, but a necessary process in order to make sure that we’re making the best possible decisions.”
But when reporters continued to press him, asking why the process was taking so long, President Obama pushed back:
“It’s a matter of making certain that when I send young men and women into war, and I devote billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money, that it’s making us safer, and that the strategies that are placed not just on the military side but also on the civilian side are coordinated and effective in our primary goal.”
And when they pressed him even harder, President Obama finally lost his cool, admirably acknowledging that
“there have been critics of the process. They tend not to be folks who I think are directly involved in what’s happening in Afghanistan. Those who are [involved] recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right.”
Listen carefully, and you can hear President Obama tactfully telling Dick Cheney to go fvck himself.”
BBQ — fair point. All I meant was that they aren’t ACTUALLY capitulating to terrorists in their hearts. probably a distinction without a difference.
and thx paul. It strikes me that the GOP is taking an enormous risk on multiple fronts. what if Obama is modestly successful in Afghanistan, the economy reounds to some degree and the public decides it likes health care reform?
“Listen carefully, and you can hear President Obama tactfully telling Dick Cheney to go fvck himself.”
{{{{SWOON!}}}}
I love this president. I don’t care what any of his critics say – I frakking love this president.
“the economy reounds to some degree and the public decides it likes health care reform?”
Well don’t look now, but first time home buyers numbers – way up. The economy is coming back.
Dick Cheney in 2012? http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/dick-cheney-in-2012-daughter-liz-floats-idea-on-fox-news.php?ref=fpblg
As Ben Frumin notes, it isn’t clear if this is merely joking. But the possibility is surely one which many on the right would see as agreeable both in terms of ideology and because of the lack of any real “leader” figure on the right presently.
I think you’re right Greg, they’re risking it all on Obama’s failure. I hope it’s a huge mistake on their part because that means that Obama succeeds and they ride off into the sunset of irrelevance.
Andy, thanks for the link to the C4P website, did you notice what that guy Mansour wrote about why Palin isn’t as sparky as she once was. Forget everything else but I mean really? “The future of the free market system resting on her shoulders”…OMG
“Between the ankle-biting Falafel Lady charging her staff with ethics violations, Keith Olbermann’s twin trying to get her job, the View hags harping on her, David Letterman hitting on her, her son in a war zone, a special needs baby, her local church burned by an arsonist, Dan Fagan getting Levi Johnston fired, Levi Johnston’s mother under arrest, a volcano about to erupt in Anchorage, Dem dingbats still moaning about Troopergate, the economy in recession, and the hopes and dreams of the conservative movement and the future of our free market system resting on her shoulders… I can’t imagine why she would be tense these days?”
Bernie, I thought that was so funny, especially because I’m not quite sure Liz and Sarah would be pals or even Dick and Sarah. Kristol would be in political heaven though.
Though it’s not available for free at NYRB, the present issue includes a short essay by Garry Wills making the argument that Obama, if he were to do the moral thing, would terminate military occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan even though it would likely result in a single term in office.
I think Wills (a very smart and balanced fellow) is wrong. Not because his moral arguments are wrong (they are quite right, it seems to me) but because the alternate administration which would follow would only bring about even more of that which Wills finds so morally unjustified.
Bernie – Cheney running in 2012 would be the shizznit. The answer to a prayer.
The thought of going back to an administration similar to the last one after only four short years sends shivers up my spine.
“and the hopes and dreams of the conservative movement and the future of our free market system resting on her shoulders… I can’t imagine why she would be tense these days?””
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in 10 years – “the future of our free market system resting on Sarah Palin’s shoulders…” Ask the people in Alaska how that worked out for them.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Bernie,
I don’t agree with your statement, “if he were to do the moral thing, would terminate military occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan even though it would likely result in a single term in office.”
If it came down to a referendum, I think Americans would vote to get us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and sooner rather than later.
It is apparent that there can never be “victory” in the traditional sense in either theater of war. Staying in either/or both locations will not appreciably alter the present state of affairs. Staying means prolonging the status quo.
How is the present situation benefitting U.S. interests? The argument to stay is to argue for a perpetual U.S. presence in both nations.
Tena, I’m still laughing.
“sends shivers up my spine.”
It should.
And if people on the left get sulky about voting for Democrats, they need to get those shivers but good and remember where we came from to get where we are.
Imsinca – I have to admit, I’m really enjoying Going Rogue. I haven’t laughed this much in quite awhile.
There are some downright startling statements – like she did the Couric interview as a mercy interview because of Katie’s low self-esteem. I almost couldn’t get that typed cause I was cracked up again…
Sarah, you’re a hell of a lot of fun, really. It’s like having Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan and and that little dude who was living in OJ’s pool house and testifed at his trial, all rolled up into one winking, blinking, waving package of frozen Alaskan cheesecake.
Gasman – “If it came down to a referendum, I think Americans would vote to get us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and sooner rather than later.”
I agree with this.
Tena, and she hasn’t even started the book tour yet. I keep saying I’m going to quit talking about her because she’s so irrelevant to me, but it’s just too entertaining.
“The Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s payback campaign against Blue Dog and moderate Dems who voted against health care bill ratchets up local media pressure in South Dakota, Florida, and North Carolina. This campaign is all about letting Dems know there will be consequences for a No vote on the final bill.”
Boy, SD, FL and NC are such well-known bastions of “progressivism”, those Blue Dogs, who were only able to get elected because they are not liberal, are probably really scared about this one.
As for the “final vote” on this bill, it isn’t ever going to make it that far, and I and a couple of others will make sure of that.
@Gasman – Your estimation re electoral consequences may be right. I’m not sure how it would play out. My notion was even if there is a moral argument to be made as Wills makes it, that ignores the consequences of the modern right again gaining the WH.
“but because the alternate administration which would follow would only bring about even more of that which Wills finds so morally unjustified.”
Bernie, I don’t think you can set policy on that basis. And I don’t think Obama would.
Tena – It’s not an easy dilemma, I admit. But if I were a strategist in the administration, I would argue that politics (perhaps particularly now) is the art of the possible and that ideals are to be worked towards but that it is no shame if they are not met in full immediately.
“Elsewhere in this volume, she [Palin} talks about creationism, saying she “didn’t believe in the theory that human beings — thinking, loving beings — originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.”” http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/15/palin-book-evolution/
A few days ago, Freehold posted a link to a piece arguing that current math curricula (of an assumed lefty origin) posed a threat to the future of American technology education and productivity. One wonders what might be the consequences of a President who was happy to ignore all the basic sciences (and math) in order to get to Creationism.
As pissedoff as I was (along with many others) at Hitchen’s defence of the anti-Muslim militarism of the last administration, there are times when he’s the sharpest guy in town. Here’s the first bit of his review of Continetti’s hagiography of Palin…
“So there it is: anti-Washington except that she thirsts for it, and close enough (and also far enough away to be “deniable”) to the paranoid fringe elements who darkly suspect that our president is a Kenyan communist. If you object to Kenyans interfering in the internal affairs of these United States, you really ought to raise an eyebrow at a candidate for the governorship of Alaska who accepts anointment from “Bishop” Thomas Muthee, a weird person who claims that witch removal in his Kenyan parish led to a reduction in crime, booze, and traffic violations.” http://www.newsweek.com/id/222794/page/2
“. One wonders what might be the consequences of a President who was happy to ignore all the basic sciences (and math) in order to get to Creationism.”
Um, one doesn’t have to wonder. Just look at Bush – he had ‘minders’ following scientists who did work for the government around to keep them from telling the truth about climate change, among other things.
We went backwards, to a certain extent. If we had another administration that went to war against science, we’d go way backwards.
Or Bernie – look at Texas. The religious ratwing got Creationism in our textbooks. We have the highest dropout rate in the country and we’re graduating kids who honestly think “The Flintstones” is pretty factual.
The last line of that Newsweek piece is even more frightening. We all enjoy making fun of her here and elsewhere, but what does it say about our country and it’s population that she came so close and may run again?
“Sarah Palin appears to have no testable core conviction except the belief (which none of her defenders denies that she holds, or at least has held and not yet repudiated) that the end of days and the Second Coming will occur in her lifetime. This completes the already strong case for allowing her to pass the rest of her natural life span as a private citizen.”
Imsinca – have you read this?
“How Sarah Palin Made Herself Indispensable While Destroying the Republican Party”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/how-sarah-palin-made-hers_b_358434.html
Imsinca – what is says about our country is that there is a minority of people who feel eternal resentment against those whom they view as the “elite.” And she speaks directly to them.
“If Palin is indeed a cancer on the GOP, why can’t the Republican establishment retire her to a quiet life of moose hunting in the political wilderness? Why has her appeal only increased in the wake of her catastrophic political expeditions? Why won’t she listen to, or abide by, conventional political wisdom?
The answer lies beyond the realm of polls and punditry in the political psychology of the movement that animates and, to a great degree, controls, the Republican grassroots — a uniquely evangelical subculture defined by the personal crises of its believers and their perceived persecution at the hands of cosmopolitan elites.
The last, bolded paragraph, should have closed with quotation marks. I took the quote from the Max Blumenthal piece I linked to.
Funny, I just finished it. I’m telling you the Pentecostal Church in the US has done more harm to this country than almost anything else I can think of. Palin is their darling and they will defend her as some kind of victim until the “end of days”.
You can’t argue with them or persuade them, they are the chosen. Blumenthal is probably right, she will be the undoing of the Republican Party, but leave a lot of destruction in her path.
I can see why those people think they have the true spirit of 1776; they forget that the country really was put together not by the uneducated farmers who fought the war, but the educated men of the country. And they were wealthy, as well. They see the farmers who fought in their minds eye – they don’t see the Constitutional Convention. They now equate government of any kind with tyranny.
It’s American class warfare.
Imsinca – do not get me going on the Assembly of God – those people are seriously frakked up. I know you’ve seen my comments about them. Four Texas mothers murdered their children for Jesus and they all were Assembly of God Pentecostals.
If it had been up to me, I would have investigated the Assembly of God in Texas after the first one. If it was a Mosque, you know they would have.
Bernie,
I don’t agree that, ipso facto, Obama pulls us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and poof, we have a Republican administration in 2012.
Have you noticed the clowns in the GOP posturing as wannabe presidents? None of these goofballs aren’t going to be summarily ushered in because President Obama does something that would be overwhelmingly popular.
The families of those deployed would be ecstatic to have their loved ones back home. THAT would be overwhelmingly positive press that would be hard to give a negative spin by the teabaggers.
Tena, I read yours and Kathleens discussions on your religious upbringings so I’ll share just a quick story of my own. I was raised in a not very religious family, but my parents thought my sister and I should go to church. They found a nice little Congregational Church (Protestant) and “religiously” dropped us off every Sunday while they went to breakfast. I was confirmed, sang in the choir, belonged to the youth group and all the rest.
When I was 12 I rode my bike to a friend’s house for Sunday dinner and unbeknownst to me they were of the Evangelical persuasion. While we all held hands to pray befor dinner being served, the father of the house could sense my discomfort, I was clearly not accustomed to this, and asked if I had accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior. I was young and not exactly sure what he meant and hesitated before answering. He did not like that one bit and told me that while I was free to stay for dinner, I would not be allowed to pray with them.
I got up and rode my bike home, without dinner, as fast as I could. That was when I began to question “Religion” but not my faith.
Gasman – I agree with you. I think Bernie is completely wrong about this. I would love it so much if Obama turned the pattern on its head and said NO, and brought them all home. This country would be ECSTATIC!
Imsinca – yeah, it was obvious to me from the first that my friend’s life was weird cause her mom was wack on that stuff. My friend and I were inseparable from 4 to about 13. I was a year older and Middle School finally broke the bond.
It was constant silent warfare between her mother and my family – she just hated my parents, who both smoked, drank, Mama wore shorts and looked fabulous in them, too. We lived two doors and two entirely separate universes from each. I was lucky her mother let my friend read fantasy books, because we were insatiable readers and we would just inhabit the universe of the books. I think we both a year in Oz at least. I used to be able to name them all in order, even all the later volumes written by other authors after Baum died. Now, I bet a similar mother would say No to Harry Potter.
Tena
Our son married a girl from a very Christian, Evangelical family and it has been an interesting journey for all of us. She has become more of a daughter to me than in-law as she is considered to be the “black sheep” of her family. She had a baby out of wedlock=shame and her family never forgave her.
She even told me her mother wanted her to very quietly and secretly have an abortion, the hypocrite, rather than bring such shame to the family. Of course she is now our darling 12 year old grand daughter and my son adopted her 6 years ago.
It is a constant struggle for her trying to fit in with them and she just can’t seem to give up the effort even though they couldn’t be more hateful at times. Luckily they don’t have much influence on our grand kids, my son wouldn’t allow it.
Insinca – the real kicker came the day my friend’s mom sent her down to my house to tell me my parents were going to hell.
I answered the door and she said: My mom sent me to tell you that your parents are going to hell.
And I slammed the door. We made up a couple of days later.
What is so awful is the hatefulness. I know a perfectly lovely young woman here who grew up Mormon in an affluent family. They sent her to Brigham Young and she came home after the first semester and refused to go back. Her mother kicked her out of the house without a red cent.
Nothing. She was 18. Every time I think about that I get mad all over again. Now, this girl and her mother are closer because the rest of the kids went bad and this girl is best of them all and the only one who will speak to the mom and dad.
It’s the hatefulness. I cannot imagine my parents ever turning me away from our home, no matter what I had done. They just wouldn’t have. And to turn a child away from home for the sake of an idea? A belief? This to me is incomprehensible.
Imsinca – You and your daughter in law are lucky you have each other. I love hearing that you’re close.
I agree, when I see Religious Fanaticism of any persuasion, I cringe because I have seen, as we all have, the potential for violence and hate. The irony seems to elude them.
I’ve got a question that’s been nagging at me. I believe Sarah Palin contributed to writing her book, that she probably taped anecdotes and answered some personal questions and offered some of her thoughts on the campaign. But do people believe she’s actually read the book? It’s apparently more than 400 pages. That’s pretty long.
Good question ABC, she claims she’s read a lot of books.
Have a good evening all.
Andy: “Very odd. David Brooks calls Palin a joke and Qwen Ifil says women will be drawn to her story.”
PBS’s Gwen Ifill is a right wing hack.
That Gwen Ifill’s right wing Village journalists push Republican talking points every Friday on her PBS Washington Week show is one thing, it’s her show.
But that Gwen Ifill pushes her right wing pablum on the PBS NewsHour is incredibly offensive, particularly considering the News Hour’s otherwise remarkable success at maintaining journlalstic integrity over the decades.
Ifill’s right wing bias has shown a consistent pattern:
On the News Hour, during the Presidential Primaries, Gwen Ifill openly mocked Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, coordinating her attack with one of the Republican funded Politico.com operatives.
Gwen Ifill openly sneered at former Democratic President Al Gore during a PBS News Hour interview.
And on her PBS News Hour segments, Ifill regularly brings on two right wing guests to push two sides of the Republican narrative while completely excluding any left wing voice or perspective.
Gwen Ifill’s right wing bias is a consistent pattern, her fluffing of the farcical Republican Sarah Palin is just part of what she’s all about these days.
@Gasman and Tena
“Bernie,
I don’t agree that, ipso facto, Obama pulls us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and poof, we have a Republican administration in 2012.”
As I said earlier, you may have this right. There are two questions here: the moral question and the electoral question. On the first, I think Wills has it wrong. On the electoral question, I’m not sure how it would play out. But I suspect you are minimizing the effectiveness of the certain rightwing attacks on Dems as “weak on defense”. However irrational and packed with horseshit this is, it traditionally has worked for them as a meme to derogate Dem governance. Without a draft, we’re in a much different situation now than the sixties re citizen disapproval of the war effort. It’s unclear how many Dems in both houses would stand with Obama if he made the decision but we can predict many would not (some for reasons of honest belief, others because they are susceptible in elections, and others because of the enormous lobbying monies coming from military corporations which help fund their campaigns). The Pentagon itself would surely mobilize their PR machinery to oppose such a Presidential decision as well with strategic ‘leaks’ and ex-Generals (who may or may not have personal financial interests in the war effort or militarism more broadly) sent out to the cable shows.
No cakewalk here.
Morning roundup posted;
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/the-morning-plum-12/
Many of the left continue not to let their complete ignorance prevent them from making strident yet foolish declarations, like this from Mike:
“These same bozo’s need to step back every time they are busy cheerleading what the repercussions are to torturing suspects. You follow the law, you don’t run into these problems. Laws have been designed in ways not only to protect rights, they have been designed to protect yourself from **** like this from happening. You break them, and you end up with a big mess like we’ve got now.”
The problem isn’t “torture.” Evidence doesn’t have to be obtained through torture to be inadmissible in a U.S. criminal trial. Even if they asked KSM a question without reading him his rights first, anything he said thereafter could be excluded.
You are ignorantly advocating treatment of international terrorists to Miranda rights and all the other due process and other rights that apply in our domestic courts.
That is insane.
Thanks for your show of confidence in the rule of law.
With “attorneys” like you it’s no wonder the right is advocating fascism now.
Right wingers hate the rule of law because it is the tool that could hold them accountable for their frauds.
An impartially applied Rule of Law would also mean holding accountable the right wing’s war crimes and torture crimes and that war that the Republicans lied US into and Republican Bush’s illegal spying on Americans.
But right winger’s philosophy supports fraud, and torture, and war crimes, and illegal spying.
And that’s why right wingers hate the Rule of Law.