U.S. politics isolation tank

[Stella_Omega]

OK, a moment of self-criticism, because I feel like it...

Petraeus. Willy-based scandal awfully close to Benghazi inquiries. Discuss?

In what sense?

 

[midwestyankee]

OK, a moment of self-criticism, because I feel like it...

Petraeus. Willy-based scandal awfully close to Benghazi inquiries. Discuss?

The "scandal" only went public because it reached Eric Cantor a few days before the election. He could have blown the whistle if he had wanted to. This seems to negate charges that the WH held their cards. Besides, Petraeus is still going to testify to Congress.

 

[Netzach]

The "scandal" only went public because it reached Eric Cantor a few days before the election. He could have blown the whistle if he had wanted to. This seems to negate charges that the WH held their cards. Besides, Petraeus is still going to testify to Congress.

It'll be interesting. I'm just thinking maybe they gave him a choice of two swords to fall on. He always had a little of that John Edwards vibe to me, which goes deeper than just putting your dick places.

 

[Netzach]

In what sense?

Look, people making a "thing" of this may be douchebags, but even douchebags can be right for the wrong reasons.

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

It'll be interesting. I'm just thinking maybe they gave him a choice of two swords to fall on. He always had a little of that John Edwards vibe to me, which goes deeper than just putting your dick places.

My take: Petraeus as time traveler

Petraeus Started Affair Last Year to Cover Up Benghazi, Says Conspiracy Theorist

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...er-up-benghazi-says-conspiracy-theorist.html?

It seems a bridge too far. The Kelly complaint got the ball rolling last June.

 

[midwestyankee]

It'll be interesting. I'm just thinking maybe they gave him a choice of two swords to fall on. He always had a little of that John Edwards vibe to me, which goes deeper than just putting your dick places.

Aaaaand, down goes conspiracy theory #3, too. Got any more?

 

[Netzach]

My take: Petraeus as time traveler

Petraeus Started Affair Last Year to Cover Up Benghazi, Says Conspiracy Theorist

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...er-up-benghazi-says-conspiracy-theorist.html?

It seems a bridge too far. The Kelly complaint got the ball rolling last June.

Oh please understand, I'm not being that stupid. We only care enough....now

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

Oh please understand, I'm not being that stupid. We only care enough....now

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you thought that it was all after the fact.

There are enough Republicans to latch onto anything that they can grasp. If it had been there at any point, I think that they would have used it. Agent shirtless was certainly on team Romney. They tried every nut theory possible.

For example:

Georgia GOPers hold meeting over Obama mind-control conspiracy
In connection with an alleged UN plot to forcibly move everyone to the cities
http://www.salon.com/2012/11/14/georgia_gopers_hold_meeting_over_obama_mind_control_conspiracy/

Georgia state Senators held a meeting last month to discuss Agenda 21, a supposed UN conspiracy to deny private property rights, which Obama will help accomplish through a mind-control technique known as Delphi.

 

[Netzach]

This appointment was all about continuity with Bush established operations, I'm not forgetting that part either.

 

[Netzach]

I just want everyone to be as vigilant as we'd be if this was Ollie North or something on a stand.

I think we get in trouble when we lose some of our mistrust, you know? Why do we think there are WMD's? Well Powell said there are, he's a stand-up guy!

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

I just want everyone to be as vigilant as we'd be if this was Ollie North or something on a stand.

I think we get in trouble when we lose some of our mistrust, you know? Why do we think there are WMD's? Well Powell said there are, he's a stand-up guy!

I'm reserving judgement on the whole matter. There have been several interesting article on the the security state eating itself.

The best:

Glenn Greenwald: How America's Surveillance State Breeds Conformity and Fear
http://www.alternet.org/story/15617...surveillance_state_breeds_conformity_and_fear

And a must read:
Peter Maass: Was Petraeus Borked?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/was-petraeus-borked.html



As the newest entry in Bartlett's has it: "The answer is out there."

 

[Netzach]

I'm reserving judgement on the whole matter. There have been several interesting article on the the security state eating itself.

The best:


And a must read:
Peter Maass: Was Petraeus Borked?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/was-petraeus-borked.html



As the newest entry in Bartlett's has it: "The answer is out there."

Nice, nice. Yeah, I have a paranoid sense of double edged weapons.

 

[intothewoods]

I just want everyone to be as vigilant as we'd be if this was Ollie North or something on a stand.

I think we get in trouble when we lose some of our mistrust, you know? Why do we think there are WMD's? Well Powell said there are, he's a stand-up guy!

I agree -- I don't see why he can't still testify about Benghazi.

The timing of this sort of stinks for Obama, and I don't like conspiracy theories as a rule. I just think this has been poorly handled.

I'm reserving judgement on the whole matter. There have been several interesting article on the the security state eating itself.

The best:


And a must read:
Peter Maass: Was Petraeus Borked?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/11/was-petraeus-borked.html



As the newest entry in Bartlett's has it: "The answer is out there."

That's a great piece.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Raucous applause from my little corner of the world, though it's doubtful anything will come of it:

Freedom From Religion Foundation sues IRS for not enforcing electioneering restrictions on churches
Judith Davidoff on Wednesday 11/14/2012 4:06 pm

On the heels of a presidential election in which hundreds of preachers publicly promised to flout Internal Revenue Service rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit, the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit against the IRS for failing to enforce electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the lawsuit charges that Douglas Shulman, the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, "has violated, continues to violate and will continue to violate in the future, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by failing to enforce the electioneering restrictions of 501(c)(3) of the Tax Code against churches and religious organizations."​

More in the story linked through the headline.

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

Nice, nice. Yeah, I have a paranoid sense of double edged weapons.

All too often the weapon only cuts in one direction. Credit card companies, credit rating corps (as mentioned in the Maass article), insurance corps can get all sorts of records of mine that I can't get myself. They can all see my complete driving record, but when I go to the Florida DR and try to see what is there, it is verboten. Yet if I pay a few bucks I can get another person's records from one of those snooping companies. I met a nice lady -really nice,but I needed to check on something and the info company (phone and address) was making a 2 for 1 offer and I entered the lady's name and zip. She had 2 DWI, etc, etc. Easy peasy!!

Even worse, I had an display ad on the margin of my Yahoo mail. It addressed me by name and said that most people were unaware that they (insurance company) offered auto insurance, but since I lived at XYZ address and drove an ABC car, blah blah, I was qualified to get their super exclusive insurance.

Really scary! All our info is low hanging fruit.
DAVE KNOWS ALL> http://youtu.be/F7pYHN9iC9I

 

[Netzach]

All too often the weapon only cuts in one direction. Credit card companies, credit rating corps (as mentioned in the Maass article), insurance corps can get all sorts of records of mine that I can't get myself. They can all see my complete driving record, but when I go to the Florida DR and try to see what is there, it is verboten. Yet if I pay a few bucks I can get another person's records from one of those snooping companies. I met a nice lady -really nice,but I needed to check on something and the info company (phone and address) was making a 2 for 1 offer and I entered the lady's name and zip. She had 2 DWI, etc, etc. Easy peasy!!

Even worse, I had an display ad on the margin of my Yahoo mail. It addressed me by name and said that most people were unaware that they (insurance company) offered auto insurance, but since I lived at XYZ address and drove an ABC car, blah blah, I was qualified to get their super exclusive insurance.

Really scary! All our info is low hanging fruit.
DAVE KNOWS ALL> http://youtu.be/F7pYHN9iC9I

But we're all so much SAFER now!!!

 

[Netzach]

Raucous applause from my little corner of the world, though it's doubtful anything will come of it:

Freedom From Religion Foundation sues IRS for not enforcing electioneering restrictions on churches
Judith Davidoff on Wednesday 11/14/2012 4:06 pm

On the heels of a presidential election in which hundreds of preachers publicly promised to flout Internal Revenue Service rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit, the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit against the IRS for failing to enforce electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the lawsuit charges that Douglas Shulman, the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, "has violated, continues to violate and will continue to violate in the future, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by failing to enforce the electioneering restrictions of 501(c)(3) of the Tax Code against churches and religious organizations."​

More in the story linked through the headline.

That's stellar. I may beg to differ on the divinity of Jesus, but I'm a huge fan. "Render unto Caesar" is one smart philosophy, because it keeps the state out of your shit too - hope that lesson is taught the hard way.

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

Raucous applause from my little corner of the world, though it's doubtful anything will come of it:

Freedom From Religion Foundation sues IRS for not enforcing electioneering restrictions on churches
Judith Davidoff on Wednesday 11/14/2012 4:06 pm

On the heels of a presidential election in which hundreds of preachers publicly promised to flout Internal Revenue Service rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit, the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit against the IRS for failing to enforce electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the lawsuit charges that Douglas Shulman, the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, "has violated, continues to violate and will continue to violate in the future, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by failing to enforce the electioneering restrictions of 501(c)(3) of the Tax Code against churches and religious organizations."​

More in the story linked through the headline.

All to the good. Nevertheless, I am not optimistic. This has been attempted before. I doubt that even a favorable ruling form one judge would have any effect. The IRS usually just puts it all in file "86." Their justification (always off the record) is that the religious faction is just too strong. The same 'reasoning' explains why it takes forever for the IRS to shut down bogus charities.

For those of us in the Miami/Ft Lauderdale/Palm Beach area, we were treated to TV commercials staring Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu telling us that only Romney was a friend to Israel -- religion + foreign official endorsing a Presidential candidate.

The religious types, Christian, Muslim, Jews, etc never want to give up telling everyone what to do.

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

QUESTION: Did Republicans give aid and comfort to the enemy?

Petraeus says CIA mislead on attack to avoid alerting terrorists AP ‎Friday, ‎November ‎16, ‎2012

http://news.yahoo.com/petraeus-believed-terrorists-behind-libya-attack-145946656--politics.html

The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the U.S. intelligence community was on their trail.

Petraeus also said it initially was unclear whether militants infiltrated a demonstration to cover their attack.

The retired four-star general addressed the House and Senate intelligence committees in back-to-back, closed-door hearings as questions persist over what the Obama administration knew in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and why their public description did not match intelligence agencies' assessments.

I can't help wondering if the Democrats in the week or two following the 2001 World Trade Tower/Pentagon attack had being having a similar fit about what Dubya, Cheney, Rice, et al knew and did, what the response would have been.

 

[intothewoods]

Ok, I thought I was going insane, since I thought it was reported he wasn't going to testify at all. But I just read somewhere that it was up in the air for a while.

 

[intothewoods]

QUESTION: Did Republicans give aid and comfort to the enemy?




I can't help wondering if the Democrats in the week or two following the 2001 World Trade Tower/Pentagon attack had being having a similar fit about what Dubya, Cheney, Rice, et al knew and did, what the response would have been.

Isn't this supposed to be coordinated with the Intelligence Committee?

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

Isn't this supposed to be coordinated with the Intelligence Committee?

I'm uncertain what you mean. I don't think that either Senate or House committees are usually in the loop on such things. If the FBI/CIA/Pentagon -- all professionals -- can't handle it, then it is unlikely that any pols could be of any use. Congress is usually informed after the heat of the events. Otherwise there is super micromanagement. I'm still not sure whether this addresses your question or not.

My point is based on the time honored principal (but not a law) that politics stops at the water's edge. That is, that one political party doesn't try to play any issue of a foreign policy nature against the other party. This also covers the idea of bringing any foreign influence into policy questions.

For example, after the 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon no one in the Democratic Party questioned or second guessed the acts of the Bush administration. A bit later certain commentators and comedians make issue with Bush's continuing with "My Pet Goat" after the agent whispered to him about the attack. However, no opposition politicans jumped on Bush for example, the way that Romney stepped into the matter less than 24 hours after the Benghazi attack.

I consulted my first edition copy of the 9/11 Commission Report. Since it is an official government (tax paid) publication it doesn't carry a copyright date, but there is the following:

In November 2002 the United States Congress and President George W Bush established by law the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, also know as the 9/11 Commission. This independent, bipartisan panel was directed to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks, identify lessons learned, and provide recommendations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism

This volume is the authorized edition of the Commission's final rerort.

The Commission's Report was released from the government printing office on July 22, 2004. Hardly a "rush to judgement."

Yet Mitt and company flew into high dungeon less than 24 hours after the attack, demanding to know if the President had been negligent. This is a clear use of foreign affairs for political purposes and contrary to all precedent. Unfortunately there are words to describe people who conduct themselves in such a manner. The word "guttersnipe" comes to mind.

This is, of course, contrary to all common legal precedent as well. How often do we hear of a crime gang/syndicate being arrested, when the list of those arrestedis not being released because some members are still at large and considered a serious flight risk. At least that is the way when drug gangs are arrested in Florida. The remaining members are frequently stopped at the airport trying to board flights to south of the Pecos. Would anyone think it a good idea to make the list of arrest warrants public a couple of days in advance?

The whole Republican stance smacks of, "We can't trust that foreign born, probably Muslim, definitely Socialist usurper in the White House to do his duty."

END OF RANT

 

[midwestyankee]

The whole Republican stance smacks of, "We can't trust that foreign born, probably Muslim, definitely Socialist usurper in the White House to do his duty."

END OF RANT

I would assert that their stance goes just a bit further. To continue, "We don't want you to trust him either, so vote for our guy."

 

[intothewoods]

I'm uncertain what you mean. I don't think that either Senate or House committees are usually in the loop on such things. If the FBI/CIA/Pentagon -- all professionals -- can't handle it, then it is unlikely that any pols could be of any use. Congress is usually informed after the heat of the events. Otherwise there is super micromanagement. I'm still not sure whether this addresses your question or not.

All I'm wondering is if when they got briefed (after the fact), it was made clear that certain things were being omitted for security reasons. There seems to be this air of disorganization and I'm just wondering if the intelligence folks couldn't have said -- Look, we only know X, so don't speculate about the rest, we will fill you in.

I'm just wondering if they ignored directions, or if they were truly in the dark.

Another thing -- does it make sense for the White House to be unaware of an investigation of the director of the CIA? I get the argument for that -- you want to keep it all business and not politicize or perhaps personalize it (avoiding Nixonian type moves), but it seems off to me for some reason. Like who is the check and balance on the dudes doing the investigating, you know?

If it turns out that the government has to give back some of its surveillance powers because all of Congress is into online domination and doesn't want to be found out, well, fuck yeah is all I gotta say on that!

 

[intothewoods]

Am I the only person not particularly upset by these secession petitions? I mean, I think it's a bunch of yahoos, for sure, but it's also a very democratic expression.