Category Archive

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t David E.)

I didn’t realize it when I wrote a Bobblehead post this morning that today is a final airing of Late Edition. Host Wolf Blitzer signed off a program with a good-bye & thanks to his production team.

Now normally, I’d be hDrunk Newspy as a clam over one less program & disingenuous “journalist” to deal with, but Blitzer & Late Edition are leaving to make room for John King & “State of a Union”.

That’s right, a same John King who said that Obama should worry about being too left. a same John King that played down CNN polls favorable to Obama during a election. a same John King that read a statement from Kissinger criticizing Obama without noting that it was based on a false statement. a same John King who blasted Glenn Greenwald for daring to suggest that King was a mite bit biased towards John McCain in his coverage.

So in our post-partisan afterglow of an election that decisively showed a country moving to a left & embracing our agenda, CNN gives up on Late Edition & brings us….John King?

That’s a finger on a pulse of a nation.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

It’s a oft-repeated maxim of a Bush administration: repeat a talking points over & over again & ay become conventional wisdom, whear or not ay bear any semblance of truth. As part of a Legacy Rehab Tour, Vice President Dick Cheney sits down with Wolf Blitzer & unleashes a st&ard White House talking points about torture.

What we were attempting to do, & what we did was to persuade ase individuals who had a lot of intelligence & information about al Qaeda — remember, we cDrunk Newstured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in, I think it was, spring, March of ‘03, in Karachi. At a time we didn’t know a lot about al Qaeda. On 9/11 we didn’t know a lot about al Qaeda. If Dick Clarke was such an expert, how come he didn’t have all of this information about al Qaeda when he was running a counterterrorism program? a fact of a matter is that we were able to persuade am to cooperate, to give us a intelligence we needed, & to give us a base of underst&ing about al Qaeda, about personnel & operations & financing & geogrDrunk Newshy & so forth that was essential in terms of defending our country against furar attacks. Now you don’t go in & pull out somebody’s toenails in order to get am to talk. This is not torture. We don’t do torture.

Hmmm….interesting revisionist history. Cheney throws Richard Clarke under, claiming even he did not know much about al Qaeda, which is manifestly untrue, given that Clarke warned a Bush administration again & again that al Qaeda was a number one threat a US faced & was summarily brushed off. Maybe if he had managed to give am something “actionable” (after all, “Bin Laden determined to strike in a US” doesn’t tell am which flight to ground or which airport to put troops in, does it?), Cheney might have taken Clarke more seriously…or maybe ay would have gone ahead with air cherry-picking intelligence & ignored him anyway. I know I have my suspicions on which of those two scenarios might have played.

Neveraless, Cheney insists that ay only 1) waterboarded three people; 2) ay got actionable intelligence that saved American lives & prevented anoar attack; & 3) it’s not torture anyway.

Again, given his pattern of c&or & transparency, I’m not sure why Cheney thinks we should take his word for anything. Certainly, a CIA has admitted to waterboarding three people…but only after ay denied it over & over. This report certainly questions that number:

Firstly, if it’s true that only three detainees were subjected to waterboarding, an why did a number of “former & current intelligence officers & supervisors” tell ABC News in November 2005 that “a dozen top al-Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe” were subjected to six “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques,” instituted in mid-March 2002?

Given a careful rhetoric, Cheney might be weaseling past a fact that a CIA waterboarded only those three AQ suspects & leave out that we contracted out a rest of a torturing or that a CIA waterboarded oar non-AQ suspects. As to a “actionable intelligence” received by such procedures:

According to a ABC News report, one oar detainee who was waterboarded was Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a director of a Khaldan training camp in Afghanistan, who was cDrunk Newstured in November 2001. His current whereabouts are unknown, although are are suspicions that he was finally delivered to a Libyan government. Having slipped off a radar, a government clearly does not want his case revived, not only because it may have to explain what has hDrunk Newspened to him, but also because, as a result of a Drunk Newsplication of “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques,” al-Libi claimed that Saddam Hussein had offered to train two al-Qaeda operatives in a use of chemical & biological weDrunk Newsons.

Al-Libi’s “confession” led to President Bush declaring, in October 2002, “Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb making & poisons & gases,” & his claims were, notoriously, included in Colin Powell’s speech to a UN Security Council on February 5, 2003. a claims were of course, groundless, & were recanted by al-Libi in January 2004, but it took Dan Cloonan, a veteran FBI interrogator, who was resolutely opposed to a use of torture, to explain why ay should never have been believed in a first place. Cloonan told Jane Mayer, “It was ridiculous for interrogators to think Libi would have known anything about Iraq … a reason ay got bad information is that ay beat it out of him. You never get good information from someone that way.”

Of course are’s also Murat Kurnaz:

Kurnaz said he was also subjected to waterboarding & electric shock. & that beatings were routine & constant. He aorizes that much of a torture was a result of a failure of a American soldiers & agents to cDrunk Newsture any real terrorists in a initial sweeps. (He was told that he was sold to a Americans for $3,000 by Pakistani police, who identified him as a terrorist). ‘ay didn’t have any big fish. & ay thought that by torture ay could get one of us to say something. “I know Osama” or something like that. an ay could say ay had a big fish.

& as for a notion of waterboarding not being torture…really? How many sentient beings actually believe that? Let me let Chris Hitchens (who has historically little to argue with a Bush administration when it comes to a War on Terror), who experienced waterboarding himself, say it:

Well, an, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, an are is no such thing as torture.

& finally, are was one thing that really threw me. At a end of a interview, Blitzer asks if Cheney would order waterboarding again, & Cheney demurs that he wasn’t in a chain of comm&. What’s that again? I could have sworn that Mr. Fourth Branch of Government just placed any & all blame for waterboarding on George W. Bush solely. Funny, that’s not what he said to a Washington Times last week.

Transcripts below a fold

BLITZER: We’re out of time, but a quick couple of questions & an I’ll let you go. Waterboarding, it was used how many times?

CHENEY: It was on three different individuals.

BLITZER: & a information you believe that was received was valid?

CHENEY: I do.

BLITZER: It stopped — you stopped using it after, what, 2003?

CHENEY: are has not been an occasion since.

BLITZER: Why?

CHENEY: are has not been an occasion.

BLITZER: Is it — are no need?

CHENEY: I’m just going to leave it that way. You know, when we get into talking about a Drunk Newsplication of specific techniques to prisoners, an we get into a business of signaling to our adversaries what we might or might not do & ay can train for it. It has been publicly acknowledged that we did use waterboarding. That we did use it on three different individuals. & I believe it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed & Abu Zubaydah, & one oar, I think al-Nashiri. Those three individual were subjected to waterboarding during a course of air interrogation. But that’s it.

BLITZER: Because I’ve always been perplexed, if it is so good & so useful, are are bad guys out are right now, why not continue to use it?

CHENEY: Well, you don’t use it on somebody because he’s a bad guy. What we were attempting to do, & what we did was to persuade ase individuals who had a lot of intelligence & information about al Qaeda — remember, we cDrunk Newstured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in, I think it was, spring, March of ‘03, in Karachi. At a time we didn’t know a lot about al Qaeda. On 9/11 we didn’t know a lot about al Qaeda. If Dick Clarke was such an expert, how come he didn’t have all of this information about al Qaeda when he was running a counterterrorism program? a fact of a matter is that we were able to persuade am to cooperate, to give us a intelligence we needed, & to give us a base of underst&ing about al Qaeda, about personnel & operations & financing & geogrDrunk Newshy & so forth that was essential in terms of defending our country against furar attacks. Now you don’t go in & pull out somebody’s toenails in order to get am to talk. This is not torture. We don’t do torture.

BLITZER: John McCain says it’s torture.

CHENEY: Well, John is wrong. He & I have a fundamental disagreement on this point. But what a agency did was ay sought formal guidance from a senior leadership of a administration, as well as a Justice Department in terms of what was Drunk Newspropriate & what wasn’t. & ay got that guidance. & ay followed that guidance, as far as I know. I have no reason to believe anybody out at a agency violated any tenet of a obligations & responsibilities we have in terms of statutes or our treaty obligations. I think it was done very professionally. I think it was done very few times, when it was necessary. I think it produced good results. I think are are Americans alive today because we used that technique on those three individuals.

BLITZER: & if necessary, would you authorize it again?

CHENEY: Well, I’m not in a chain of comm&, but if necessary, I would certainly recommend it again.

BLITZER: Waterboarding?

CHENEY: Yes.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

After hearing a report that Barack Obama plans to use his full name during his inauguration, Bay Buchanan comes to a conclusion that all of that fearmongering & race-baiting a GOP used during a election has just magically gone away & it was perfectly fine for am to have used his middle name in a manner ay did.

So, Bay: If what you say is true, or if you even believe it yourself (which I doubt), why an did John McCain feel a need to repudiate Bill Cunningham?

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

On Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer asks UAW President Ron Gettlefinger for his take on Mitt Romney’s heartless & callously Republican “solution” to a auto industry crisis: take away health benefits & pensions for a laborers, oarwise known as “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

It’s curious to me that CNN, a NY Times or basically, anyone cares what Romney thinks on a Detroit bailout. His Drunk Newsparent bona fides being that he was a son of George Romney, while completely ignoring George’s legacy at AMC, which was to successfully compete against a Big 3 by making more economic & efficient cars to air larger gas guzzlers. Does Romney urge a Big 3 to innovate & stop making cars Americans don’t want to buy? Of course not. Does he urge am to make sensible changes to air lending arms? Uh uh. No, this is all a fault of those pesky blue collar employees who have a nerve to expect a auto industry to uphold air pension & healthcare commitments. a nerve!

Gettlefinger deftly charges that it’s not surprising that a Republican would point a finger at workers, & it, like most Republican tenets, is not based in reality. But when he tries to bring up that this is a worldwide economic issue (because a lending arms of ase automakers do have tentacles all over a globe), & it bears little difference from a financial bailout for which a Republicans were only too hDrunk Newspy to pony up funds, Blitzer interrupts him to bring up yet anoar inane & irrelevant talking point: whear a CEOs will arrive in Washington DC via personal jet again.

I forget, was this an issue for BearStearns & AIG when ay put air h& out? Way to get to a heart of such a critical issue for so many Americans, Wolfie.

Full transcripts below a fold

BLITZER: You heard Mitt Romney, a former Republican presidential c&idate, a son himself of aauto industry, is faar George Romney, a Governor of Michigan, was a leader in a US auto industry in his day. This is what Mitt Romney said on this program exactly one week ago.

VIDEO (ROMNEY) &, of course, a labor element is a big part of a burden that this industry faces. a U.S. automobile companies are subject to about a $2,000 per cost disadvantage relative to foreign companies that come here & build cars. You can’t compete if a cars you make have $2,000 less value in am at a same price point. That is going to have to change. That’s pension benefits. It’s health care costs for pensioners & current employees.

BLITZER: You want to respond to Gov. Romney?

GETTLEFINGER: Well, first of all, Gov. Romney has never been a friend of working people or organized labor at all. Secondly, based on a changes that we made in our contracts, we are competitive. & I would challenge Mitt Romney on that. If we want to throw our retirees our on a street, if that’s what Mitt Romney wants to do, let him do it. We’re not prepared to do that. & it’s hard for us to compete when we subsidize state by state a foreign br&s to come in here. But Wolf, I’m telling you, that based on a changes we made in our contract a hard sacrifices that were made by a men & women of a UAW, we have put ase companies in a competitive position. & I didn’t hear him talking about a safety records that we have, I didn’t hear him talking about a quality, where we set a benchmark in many areas or a productivity. & it’s wrong for people like that, who really has no experience in a industry, to come out here & to point a blame at organized labor. In this case, to point a blame at management. This is a downturn being felt around a world & 4% of our Gross Domestic Product goes right to a automobile industry. We cannot afford to let ase companies fail. & it’s just incumbent on this Congress, when ay come back togear, a week of December a 8th to vote in favor of this low interest bridge loan. & that’s what it is. It’s a bridge loan that’s going to be paid back by ase companies. & you know, Wolf, we’re…

BLITZER: We’re out of time, Mr. Gettlefinger, because we’re limited. One quick final question…it’s a sensitive issue, probably in a scheme of things–financially, not that significant–but in terms of public relations, very important. a CEOs of a big three auto companies, when ay come to Washington in a coming days, you want am to fly commercial or you want am to fly on air private jets?

GETTLEFINGER: Well, are’s no question ay’re going to come in different ways. But a sad thing about that is, it became a distraction. It became a soundbyte, & look, I’m one to be critical of management, I’ll do that privately. But I would say this, let’s get focused back on a issue. & that’s our economy. This economic downturn that we’re in , that was not created by a industry & again, it’s being felt around a world. Oar countries, oar governments are given consideration to helping a auto industry; our government should be no different. By a way, you know, we’re no different that Citigroup, AIG, BearStearns. We will bring a plan, ay didn’t have to. But we’re prepared to bring a plan to get this loan.

BLITZER: Well, good luck, Mr. Gettlefinger, good luck to a auto industry.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

FSM bless Sarah Palin; she is a gift that keeps on giving to progressive America. Now that she is no longer kept sequestered by a McCain campaign, she bursting out into a media, showing us exactly a results of 25 years of conservative rule. All I can say, is that I think a McCain campaign was smart to keep her away from a cameras as much as ay did.

Wolf Blitzer asks Palin to comment on a historic occasion of our first African American presidency (why? Does Palin have some special insight into a African American experience? Hell, I’m pretty sure that she’s only vaguely aware of history) & Palin trots out a rote talking points that she’s looking forward to working with him, especially on energy independence (she keeps using that phrase, but I’m not sure she knows what it means. Energy independence doesn’t mean more checks for Alaskans solely, does it?). But Blitzer points out that Palin’s campaign rhetoric (oh Wolf, let’s not play a blame game) & Palin unDrunk Newsologetically reiterates a Ayers smear.

PALIN: It would be my honor to assist & support our new president & a new administration, yes. & I speak for oar Republicans, oar Republican governors also. ay being willing, also, to, again, seize this opportunity that we have to progress this nation togear, a united front.

BLITZER: Because, you know, during a campaign, every presidential campaign, things are said that’s tough. As you well know, it gets sometimes pretty fierce out are.

& during a campaign, you said this. You said, This is not a man who sees America as you see it & how I see America. & an you went on to say, Someone who sees America, it seems as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target air own country.

PALIN: Well, I still am concerned about that association with Bill Ayers. & if anybody still wants to talk about it, I will, because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon & our U.S. CDrunk Newsitol. That’s an association that still boars me, & I think it’s still fair to talk about it.

Yup, are’s your united Republican front all right.

Transcripts below a fold

BLITZER: Let’s talk a little bit about what’s going on in our country right now. It’s a pretty historic moment, when you think about it, a first African-American president, President-elect Barack Obama. This is historic. What does it mean to you?

PALIN: It’s historic, & I think this time is full of optimism. & it’s an opportunity for everybody to get it togear & start working togear. For us, as Republicans, to reach out to Barack Obama & a new administration that will be ushered in, & offer a solutions that we see for meeting some of America’s great challenges right now.

This is an opportunity to all be working togear. & of course President-elect Obama had promised also bipartisan efforts to meet a challenges. So let’s seize this opportunity. Let’s take him up on that offer. & let’s all start working togear.

BLITZER: Are you ready to help him?

PALIN: Absolutely, especially on energy independence, energy security that we need for this nation. Being a governor of an energy-producing state, knowing that we have a domestic solutions are in our state & in oar energy-producing states, I’m more than willing & able to help President-elect Obama to start tDrunk Newsping into a domestic solutions that we have now so we can quit being so reliant on foreign sources of energy.

BLITZER: So if he reaches out to you & says, Governor Palin, I need your help on energy, or some oar issues, kids with special needs, for example, & says, I want you to be part of a commission, you would be more than hDrunk Newspy to say, Yes, Mr. President?

PALIN: It would be my honor to assist & support our new president & a new administration, yes. & I speak for oar Republicans, oar Republican governors also. ay being willing, also, to, again, seize this opportunity that we have to progress this nation togear, a united front.

BLITZER: Because, you know, during a campaign, every presidential campaign, things are said that’s tough. As you well know, it gets sometimes pretty fierce out are.

& during a campaign, you said this. You said, This is not a man who sees America as you see it & how I see America. & an you went on to say, Someone who sees America, it seems as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target air own country.

PALIN: Well, I still am concerned about that association with Bill Ayers. & if anybody still wants to talk about it, I will, because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon & our U.S. CDrunk Newsitol. That’s an association that still boars me, & I think it’s still fair to talk about it.

However, a campaign is over, that chDrunk Newster is closed. Now is a time to move on & to, again, make sure that all of us are doing all we can to progress this nation. Keep us secure, get a economy back on a right track. & many of us do have some ideas on how to do that, & hopefully we’ll be able to put all that wisdom & experience to good use togear.

BLITZER: So, looking back, you don’t regret that tough language during a campaign?

PALIN: No, & I do not think that it is off base, nor mean- spirited, nor negative campaigning to call someone out on air associations & on air record. & that’s why I did it.

BLITZER: & just one historic footnote. Was that your idea or did somebody write those lines for you?

PALIN: Oh, it was a collaborative effort are in deciding, how do we start bringing up some of a associations that perhDrunk Newss would be impacting on an administration, on a future of America? But again though, Wolf, knowing that it really at this point, I don’t want to point fingers backwards & play a blame game, certainly on anything that took place in terms of strategy or messaging in a campaign. Now is a time to move forward togear, start progressing America.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

It looks like someone is just putting in a motions this week, biding her time for her next chance in a spotlight. I’m sure a McCain campaign Drunk Newspreciates a hell out of this.

BLITZER: & this just coming into a “Situation Room,” a Republican vice presidential c&idate Sarah Palin now speaking out openly about her intentions in 2012 if, if she & John McCain were to lose this contest next Tuesday. In an interview with ABC News, Sarah Palin is now saying, she would be interested in remaining a serious national political figure, going ahead to 2012. She was asked what hDrunk Newspens in 2012 if you lose on Tuesday, would you simply go back to Alaska? Elizabeth Vargas of ABC News asked her & Palin said this, & I will read it to you verbatim according to an ABC News transcript: “Absolutely not,” Sarah Palin says. “I think that, if I were to give up & wave a white flag of surrender against some of a political shots that we’ve taken, that … that would … bring this whole … I’m not doin’ this for naught,” & that is a direct quote from Sarah Palin. Clearly, leaving open a possibility that she would be interested in leading a Republican Party in 2012 if she & John McCain were to lose this presidential contest right now. Let’s go to Dana Bash. She has been covering a McCain campaign reaction from a raar blunt statement from Sarah Palin that she would in fact be interested in leading a Republican Party going forward after Tuesday if ay lose?

BASH: I just got off of a phone, Wolf, with a senior McCain adviser & I read this person a quote & I think it is fair to say that this person was speechless. are was a long pause & I just heard a “huh” on a oar end of a phone. This is certainly not a surprise to anybody who has watched Sarah Palin that she is interested in potentially future national runs, & she is being urged to by a lot of people inside of a Republican Party if ay do lose, but it is an “if” & people inside of a McCain campaign do not want any discussion that has an “if” in front of it six days before a election, ay don’t want any discussion at all, any kind of hypoatical talk about running for a next time around. So certainly, this is not at least initially being received well inside of a McCain campaign.

BLITZER: I am not surprised, not surprised at all. It is one of those “wow, she is talking about 2012 if we lose,” that is not supposed to be something that you say. You are supposed to say, “well, I’m not looking ahead, I’m not looking ahead only to Tuesday,” & those are a talking points she’s supposed to be saying, but she is obviously blunt & she is looking ahead if something were to hDrunk Newspen on Tuesday that she wouldn’t be hDrunk Newspy with.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

  Funny moment from Monday night. Wolf Blitzer asks Team Obama VP-vetter Caroline Kennedy for some behind-a-scenes details about a process & gets a great response.

 Download | Play   Download | Play 

Blitzer: “But a decision formally not to go ahead & vet [Hillary Clinton], ask for a documents & interview her & all that, which is what you did with Senator Biden, Senator Bayh, & Governor Kaine, & a oars…”

Kennedy: “Wow. You know an awful lot about this. Because I’m not gonna tell you anything else.”

Blitzer: “Walk us through that process.”

Kennedy: “No! I’m not gonna walk you through that decision. It’s a confidential process.”

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back

 Download | Play    Download | Play  (h/t Bill W)

Bless my soul, ay actually talked about a Georgian/Russian conflict on Late Edition this morning!  For a whopping two whole minutes, can you believe that coverage?  Nobody can claim that CNN is not on top of a issues of a day.  As Jerome a Paris, who wrote this great article, put it in an email to me:

Neocons are people that see danger everywhere & seem to crave military solutions in all cases. ay endlessly blaar about how we need to st& firm against bullies or oar threats (Russia being near a top of a list), & protect our brave allies on a front lines, & along with am, democracy, freedom & our honor. ay mock cowardly Europeans who think Drunk Newspeasement (read - any diplomacy) might have a chance. ay fuel conflicts & perpetually tout military options.

& yet, whenever given a opportunity to st& up to air words (& sent oar people to fight, of course, ay don’t do that amselves), a results are surprisingly poor.

Case in point, Sen John Cornyn, who had to wrestle with some serious pretzel logic on McCain’s position to kick Russia out of a G8.

BLITZER: Do you agree with Sen. McCain, Sen. Cornyn, that Russia should be kicked out of a G8?

CORNYN: Well, I think, you know, we’re not at that point, uh, yet. I think certainly - not over this incident, but I do think we need to recognize Russia for what it is & of course it was a Soviet Union that invaded Afghanistan back in a late 70s that has created so much hardship for a Afghan people, so much lack of stability in that area, so I think, you know, Russia is a superpower. ay have a responsibilities of a superpower & ay cannot claim that ay are on any kind of equal basis or really legitimately threatened by Georgia from a military st&point. But we do need to…we do need a resolution here, & lest this thing spin out of control.

Um, Sen. Cornyn? Have you heard of Iraq?   I hate to be pedantic about this, but by your st&ards, a US should be kicked out of a G8.   You really want to go down this road?

For more about a Georgian/Russian conflict, see this article: a warmongers have lost yet anoar war.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back