|
It's About the Lying |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29754"><span class="small">Dan Froomkin, The Intercept</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 01 August 2014 14:26 |
|
Froomkin writes: "Given everything else that's been going on lately, the single biggest - and arguably most constructive - thing to focus on is how outrageously CIA Director John Brennan lied to everyone about it."
(photo: unknown)
It's About the Lying
By Dan Froomkin, The Intercept
01 August 14
 don’t want to understate how seriously wrong it is that the CIA searched Senate computers. Our constitutional order is seriously out of whack when the executive branch acts with that kind of impunity — to its overseers, no less.
But given everything else that’s been going on lately, the single biggest — and arguably most constructive — thing to focus on is how outrageously CIA Director John Brennan lied to everyone about it.
“As far as the allegations of the CIA hacking into Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth,” Brennan told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell in March. “We wouldn’t do that. I mean, that’s just beyond the, you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we do.”
Earlier, he had castigated “some members of the Senate” for making “spurious allegations about CIA actions that are wholly unsupported by the facts.” He called for an end to “outbursts that do a disservice to the important relationship that needs to be maintained between intelligence officials and Congressional overseers.”
And what compelled Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein to make a dramatic floor speech in the first place, bringing everything out in the open, was that Brennan had responded to her initial concerns not by acknowledging the CIA’s misconduct — but by firing back with an allegation of criminal activity by her own staff.
Not coincidentally, the document the CIA was hunting for, that Senate staffers were accused of purloining, and that Brennan was now lying about, was a big deal precisely because it exposed more lies.
Known as the Panetta Review (evidently prepared for Leon Panetta, who served as CIA director from 2009 to 2011), it became relevant last year, when the CIA started pushing back against many of the scathing conclusions in the several-thousand page “Torture Report” the Senate staffers had finished up in December 2012.
Even as the CIA was officially rebutting key parts of the committee’s report, the staffers realized they had an internal CIA review that corroborated them. In other words, it was proof that the CIA was now lying.
So what’s in the Torture Report? Well, I can’t quote from it, because the intelligence community and the White House have done such a good job of delaying its public release (although a redacted version is widely rumored to be coming soon).
But by all accounts, the report not only discloses abuse that was more brutal, systematic and widespread than generally recognized, but also chronicles how the people most intimately involved in the torture regime lied to others inside the CIA, lied to Justice Department lawyers, and lied to the public; how they lied about what they were doing, they lied to make it sound like it accomplished something, and afterwards, they lied some more.
Brennan reportedly told Feinstein and intelligence committee vice chairman Saxby Chambliss on Tuesday that he was sorry. But it’s hardly the first time he’s been caught in the act. There was, for instance, that time in June 2011, when he was President Obama’s counter-terrorism advisor, that he asserted that over the previous year there had not been a single collateral death from drone strikes. (He later amended that to say there was no “credible evidence” of such deaths.)
But there was indeed ample and credible evidence. (Just as one example, a March 2011 CIA drone attack in Pakistan killed some 50 people, including tribal elders who were gathered for a tribal conclave.)
Brennan’s erstwhile boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, famously lied when he assured the Senate intelligence committee that the government wasn’t collecting data on Americans in bulk when, as it turns out, it was.
Lying, of course, has always been a problem in Washington. But especially after the 9/11 terror attacks, the Bush-Cheney regime took lying to new post-Nixon heights. Maybe even pre-Nixon.
When I sat down to write my last “White House Watch” column for the Washington Post, what struck me most about the Bush years were the lies. The most consequential, of course, were the lies about the war. The most telling were the lies to cover up the lies about the war. And the most grotesque were the lies about torture.
The other thing is that there were no consequences. No one got in trouble for lying. The only semi-casualty was Scooter Libby, briefly convicted of lying while obstructing the investigation into vice president Cheney’s lies.
Figuring out how to right the constitutional imbalance between the branches of government, as exposed by this CIA assault on Congress, is very complicated.
But doing something about lying isn’t. You need to hold people accountable for it.
History will assuredly record that President Obama lied about a number of things, particularly as he carried water for the intelligence community and the military. But he’s no Cheney.
So if you’re the president, you fire everyone who lies. Starting with John Brennan.
 |
|
FOCUS | Hillary Clinton vs. Elizabeth Warren: They Have Less in Common Than You Think |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=14516"><span class="small">David Sirota, Salon</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 01 August 2014 13:05 |
|
Sirota writes: "Hillary Clinton's political allies want Democratic primary voters to believe that the former secretary of state is just like populist Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and they've been claiming that there are no differences between the two possible presidential contenders."
Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Reuters/Carlo Allegri/Michael Dwyer)
Hillary Clinton vs. Elizabeth Warren: They Have Less in Common Than You Think
By David Sirota, Salon
01 August 14
Hillary's political allies want Democratic primary voters to believe she's a real populist. It's simply not true
 illary Clinton’s political allies want Democratic primary voters to believe that the former secretary of state is just like populist Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and they’ve been claiming that there are no differences between the two possible presidential contenders. There’s just one problem: That’s not true.
Clinton last week filled in for George W. Bush at an Ameriprise conference, continuing a speaking tour that is raking in big money from Wall Street. One of her aides later downplayed the idea that Clinton’s relationship with the financial sector could be a political liability for her, should she face Warren in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. The aide defiantly insisted that the two are exactly the same.
“Ask any so-called ‘left’ or ‘liberal’ critic of Hillary to name a single vote or position (on) which Elizabeth Warren and Hillary would disagree,” said the Clinton strategist to The Hill newspaper.
OK, fine. I’ll take the challenge; there are many differences between these two politicians.
For example, in her book, “The Two Income Trap,” Warren slammed Clinton for casting a Senate vote in 2001 for a bankruptcy bill that ultimately passed in 2005. That legislation makes it more difficult for credit card customers to renegotiate their debts, even as it allows the wealthy to protect their second homes and yachts from creditors. According to a 2009 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the bankruptcy bill’s provisions changing debt payback provisions played a central role in the foreclosure crisis, as the new law forced homeowners to pay off credit card debts before paying their mortgage.
“As first lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs,” Warren wrote. “As New York’s newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. … The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not.”
Additionally, Warren has been a critic of so-called free trade deals, which create regulatory protections for patents and copyrights, but remove such protections for workers, consumers and the environment. Clinton, by contrast, was a key backer of NAFTA and voted for various free trade pacts during her Senate tenure.
Clinton was also a prominent supporter of the 1996 welfare reform legislation that made it more difficult for poor families to receive government benefits. With a new study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showing that law coinciding with a rise in extreme childhood poverty, Clinton’s position may open her up to criticism from Warren, who has positioned herself as a champion of the poor.
There is also Clinton’s vote for the Iraq War. During her 2012 Senate campaign, Warren was an outspoken critic of the war. As a senator, Warren is a co-sponsor of a new bill to repeal the original authorization for war in Iraq that Clinton supported.
Clinton, of course, has attempted to distance herself from her previous positions. In 2008, she said, “I should not have voted for that bankruptcy law.” That year, she also said she believes the NAFTA free trade model needs to be “adjusted.” And in her 2014 book, “Hard Choices,” Clinton says of her Iraq War vote: “I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.”
The reversals certainly position Clinton closer to the base of the Democratic Party. But, as then-Sen. Barack Obama’s criticism of Clinton on these issues proved in 2008, her retrospective apologies and admissions do not necessarily wipe the record clean for Democratic voters, especially when she’s raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from financial firms.
If she does face Warren in 2016, Clinton’s record will likely once again be center stage, regardless of the recent contrition.
|
|
|
FOCUS | Crimea: Can Merkel Still Strike a Deal With Putin? |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5494"><span class="small">Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 01 August 2014 11:40 |
|
Weissman writes: "Even as Washington and its sycophants were pushing Europe 'to stand up' against Russia, German chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian president Vladimir Putin were reportedly engaged in secret negotiations to resolve the current crisis over Ukraine."
Russia's president Vladimir Putin talks to German chancellor Angela Merkel in front of the Kurhaus resort in Wiesbaden, Germany, in October 2007. (photo: Frank Augstein/AP)
Crimea: Can Merkel Still Strike a Deal With Putin?
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
01 August 14
 ven as Washington and its sycophants were pushing Europe “to stand up” against Russia, German chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian president Vladimir Putin were reportedly engaged in secret negotiations to resolve the current crisis over Ukraine.
The downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 – whoever did it, and whether by accident or design – put any deal-making on ice. But sources have told The Independent that “Merkel’s deal” is still on the table, with negotiations expected to begin once the official Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) investigation of the downed aircraft has been completed.
“She needs to solve the dispute because it’s in no one’s interest to have tension in the Ukraine or to have Russia out in the cold,” said one insider. “No one wants a new Cold War.”
If only that were true.
Though the German government has officially denied the negotiations, “Merkel’s deal” appears concrete and specific.
- Germany and other nations to follow would recognize Putin’s annexation of Crimea, an admittedly hard nut for Washington and others to swallow.
- Moscow would pay Kiev $1 billion to compensate for rent the Russians used to pay for basing its warm-water fleet in the Crimean port of Sebastopol.
- Moscow would agree not to meddle in Ukraine’s trade with the EU and withdraw its financial and military support for pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine.
- The oligarchs in Kiev would devolve greater powers to the pro-Russian rebels and give up any attempts to join NATO.
- Russia’s state-controlled Gazprom would give Kiev a long-time contract for the supply and pricing of natural gas.
Together, these provisions would stabilize the border between Russia and Ukraine, boost Ukraine’s troubled economy, and reduce the threat of energy shortages in both Ukraine and the EU. But, most important, “Merkel’s deal” would preempt a wider war with its threat of nuclear annihilation.
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
The Sad Clownhood of John Boehner |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 01 August 2014 09:33 |
|
Pierce writes: "There were those of us who thought that when Eric Cantor was defeated in his primary for re-election that he would leave office without ever telling John Boehner the location of the Mason Jar in which Cantor had buried the Speaker's balls."
John Boehner. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
The Sad Clownhood of John Boehner
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
01 August 14
 here were those of us who thought that when Eric Cantor was defeated in his primary for re-election that he would leave office without ever telling John Boehner the location of the Mason Jar in which Cantor had buried the Speaker's balls. There were those of us who thought that this would be like one of those adventure novels in which the last man who knows the secret dies unexpectedly without ever having passed it along. There were those of us who thought maybe Dan Brown could one day get a novel out of the search for Boehner's balls. But we needn't have been so concerned. Cantor did his duty to posterity. He passed along the secret of where the Mason Jar is buried. He passed it along to Ted Cruz.
I'm sure that better legislative historians than I can come up with an example from history in which a first-term senator was so easily able to cross the Capitol and undermine a sitting Speaker of the House the way Cruz has for the last couple of years. I can't recall anything like it, though. Working to demonstrate that the House can do something besides provide a home for the mentally infirm, Boehner attempted to put together a bill that would address the situation along our Southern border, at least cosmetically. So he got a bill drafted that was dramatically less than what the president had proposed, and woefully short of what actually is needed, and it looked like it might even pass. And then Ted Cruz came rap-tap-tapping on the chamber door. And quoth the Raver, "Nevermore."
The House GOP plan included $659 million, a fraction of the $3.7 billion requested by the White House. Democrats opposed it, as did some conservative Republicans. Cruz hosted a pizza-fueled strategy session Wednesday night with some House conservatives - a reunion of the so-called Tortilla Coast Caucus, named for the Capitol Hill restaurant where Cruz and House allies huddled during the shutdown fight.
Aren't they just freaking adorable?
Faced with yet another Cruz-inspired mutiny, Boehner pulled his bill. So now the Congress has no bill to deal with a burgeoning humanitarian crisis at the border. He then gave us a completely pathetic reason why he garroted his own measure. It was the president's fault that Ted Cruz has the Mason Jar now and that Boehner continues to chirp away in a 'nad-less soprano.
"This situation shows the intense concern within our conference - and among the American people - about the need to ensure the security of our borders and the president's refusal to faithfully execute our laws. There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries.
(Ed. Note: Wait. Time the fk out. Didn't you yesterday vote to sue the president for doing precisely that?)
For the past month, the House has been engaged in intensive efforts to pass legislation that would compel the president to do his job and ensure it can be done as quickly and compassionately as possible. Through an inclusive process, a border bill was built by listening to members and the American people that has the support not just of a majority of the majority in the House, but most of the House Republican Conference. We will continue to work on solutions to the border crisis and other challenges facing our country."
Holy mother of god, what a eunuch. Somewhere in the Speaker's Lobby of Purgatory, Uncle Joe Cannon is pounding his head against the wall, Sam Rayburn is reaching for the bourbon again, and Henry Clay is vomiting into a potted plant. The idea that Boehner has any political power at all beyond that which a Texas crackpot allows him to have has now been rendered ludicrous. The Democratic members of the House see it, and so do people on Boehner's side of the aisle who look at him and wonder what day it will be when the Speaker simply turns into a pillar of fine powder and blows away on the breeze.
But House Republicans such as Rep. Pete King of New York Republican have been scathing, too, when it comes to Cruz. "The Obama White House should put Ted Cruz on the payroll," King told the Washington Post. "We have a chance to pass a good bill, not a perfect bill. Boehner is working hard to get to 218 votes and yet there is Ted Cruz, telling us to do nothing. If he wants to come over and run for Speaker, that's fine, but otherwise he should stay over there in the Senate."
Hard cheese, Pete. This is the party you helped build. This is the monster you helped create. It's a little late to realize you don't have the stones to control it.
The American Family Association, another group with millions of members, has issued alerts calling on the American people to rise up against their members of Congress if they vote for Boehner's bill. AFA said in an alert sent out late Wednesday: House Republicans are considering passing a bill this week that would give President Obama more money, but would do absolutely nothing to block his plan to extend amnesty to another 5 or 6 million illegal aliens with another wholly illegal executive order. Due to the president's irresponsible policies, our border is being overrun by illegal aliens who have no legal right to live or work in this country. In state after state and community after community, they are overwhelming relief services, welfare budgets, and law enforcement resources, and taking jobs that rightfully belong to American citizens. This tide of illegal immigration threatens our health, our public safety, and our national security. It's time for this dangerous pattern to stop.
They want the DREAM Act dead, just the way they wanted the Affordable Care Act defunded before they allowed the government to reopen for business last fall. John Boehner was helpless against them. Somebody else can come tell me again how the influence of the Tea Party has waned within Republican politics. Chris Cillizza, in a masterpiece of beat sweetening in anticipation of Tailgunner Ted's run for the White House in 2016, is quite taken by it all. If that becomes the narrative, not that Cruz is a committed vandal with no more interest in truly governing the country than a mower has to a lawn, but, rather, that he is a brilliant tactician in the way he is committed to making miserable the lives of people he will never see, then we are all in very deep trouble. The treasure hunt is on again, and a crazy person has the map.
|
|
ne of the best insults I’ve ever read 
