Obama's speech on closing Guantanamo

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

CONTINUE READING...

Cheney's Speech on Torture and Security

What nasty, ugly piece of work this man is. What does he think he has to gain from defending torture? Contrast that with Obama's speech this morning.

Moments after President Barack Obama concluded a sober and wide-ranging address at the National Archives on Thursday, news networks cut to a shot of Dick Cheney stepping up to a podium, set to issue what was hyped as a substantive rebuttal from the former vice president.

Instead, Cheney began by cracking jokes at the length of Obama's speech. "Good morning -- or perhaps, good afternoon," he said to some chuckles. "It's pretty clear the president served in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives because, of course, in the House, we have the five-minute [speaking] rule."

From there, the attacks only became more caustic, vicious, and personal.

Cheney described the president's national security approach as "recklessness cloaked in righteousness." He called Obama's opposition to torture "unwise in the extreme," and accused critics of "phony moralizing" and "feigned outrage" over interrogation practices.

"The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism," Cheney argued. "Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy."

The vice president's speech included other well-worn riffs from the Bush era. Cheney took multiple thinly-veiled shots at the media, noted that Obama has "found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo," and declared that dissent from the Bush national security approach would embolden America's enemies.

Read more at Huff Po.

Rest of post here.

CONTINUE READING...

Obama speaks on closing Gitmo

Protecting Our Security and Our Values
President Barack Obama
National Archives Museum, Washington, D.C.
May 21, 2009

These are extraordinary times for our country. We are confronting an historic economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.

And we have begun to make progress. Just this week, we have taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely. The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we are working toward historic reform of health care and energy. I welcome the hard work that has been done by the Congress on these and other issues.

In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.

Already, we have taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.

These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words - "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset - in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.

Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.

It is the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they'd receive better treatment from America's armed forces than from their own government.

It is the reason why America has benefited from strong alliances that amplified our power, and drawn a sharp and moral contrast with our adversaries.

It is the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism, outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free people everywhere in common cause and common effort.

From Europe to the Pacific, we have been a nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology.

After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era - that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that - too often - our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us - Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens - fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach - one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable - a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.

First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America.

I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What's more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts - they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.

The arguments against these techniques did not originate from my Administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture "serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us." And even under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his Administration - including a Secretary of State, other senior officials, and many in the military and intelligence community - that those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. We must leave these methods where they belong - in the past. They are not who we are. They are not America.

The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system. Meanwhile, over five hundred and twenty-five detainees were released from Guantanamo under the Bush Administration. Let me repeat that: two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law - a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it. That is why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign. And that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

The third decision that I made was to order a review of all the pending cases at Guantanamo.

I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we do not have the luxury of starting from scratch. We are cleaning up something that is - quite simply - a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.

Indeed, the legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release seventeen Uighur detainees took place last fall - when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican Presidents. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.

There are no neat or easy answers here. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to allow this problem to fester. Our security interests won't permit it. Our courts won't allow it. And neither should our conscience.

Now, over the last several weeks, we have seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I understand that these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We are confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans.

And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country. So I want to take this opportunity to lay out what we are doing, and how we intend to resolve these outstanding issues. I will explain how each action that we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the American people and the values that we hold dear. And I will focus on two broad areas: first, issues relating to Guantanamo and our detention policy; second, issues relating to security and transparency.

Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders - highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal "supermax" prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: "The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational."

We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. As we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last Administration, detainees were released only to return to the battlefield. That is why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past. Instead, we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and our security demands. Going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories.

First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts - courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center - he was convicted in our courts, and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. Zaccarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker - he was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.

Recently, we prosecuted and received a guilty plea from a detainee - al-Marri - in federal court after years of legal confusion. We are preparing to transfer another detainee to the Southern District of New York, where he will face trial on charges related to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania - bombings that killed over 200 people. Preventing this detainee from coming to our shores would prevent his trial and conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to finally see that justice is served, and that is what we intend to do.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts.

Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They are wrong. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process and rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal. I did, however, support the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms. And those are the reforms that we are making.

Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law. The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms - among others - will make our Military Commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.

The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts. Let me repeat what I said earlier: this has absolutely nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold twenty-one of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Twenty of these findings took place before I came into office. The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings.

The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved fifty detainees for transfer. And my Administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.

Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

As our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult. These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials and direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future. I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - so did each and every member of Congress. Together we have a responsibility to enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep this country safe.

The second set of issues that I want to discuss relates to security and transparency.

National security requires a delicate balance. Our democracy depends upon transparency, but some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security - for instance, the movements of our troops; our intelligence-gathering; or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.

Several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous Administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, or because I reject their legal rationale - although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos, we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated is unfounded - we will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach, because that approach is now prohibited.

In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and held accountable. There is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong, and nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment - informed by my national security team - that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war.

In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm's way.

In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security. This balance brings with it a precious responsibility. And there is no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was President, the American people learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq War or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. That causes suspicion to build up. That leads to a thirst for accountability.

I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued - and never will - that our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I will never abandon - and I will vigorously defend - the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. And so, whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.

We are launching a review of current policies by all of those agencies responsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive information.

Along those same lines, my Administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the "State Secrets" privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It has been used by many past Presidents - Republican and Democrat - for many decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been over-used. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrasses the government. That is why my Administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.

We plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the State Secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following a formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. Finally, each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why, because there must be proper oversight of our actions.

On all of these matter related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there is a simple formula. But there is not. These are tough calls involving competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach. But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: we will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.

In all of the areas that I have discussed today, the policies that I have proposed represent a new direction from the last eight years. To protect the American people and our values, we have banned enhanced interrogation techniques. We are closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reforming Military Commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain terrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing more oversight of our actions, and narrowing our use of the State Secrets privilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our approach to national security on a surer, safer and more sustainable footing, and their implementation will take time.

There is a core principle that we will apply to all of our actions: even as we clean up the mess at Guantanamo, we will constantly re-evaluate our approach, subject our decisions to review from the other branches of government, and seek the strongest and most sustainable legal framework for addressing these issues in the long-term. By doing that, we can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my Administration, and that endures for the next President and the President after that; a legacy that protects the American people, and enjoys broad legitimacy at home and abroad.

That is what I mean when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.

I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

I understand that it is no secret that there is a tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one another. And our media culture feeds the impulses that lead to a good fight. Nothing will contribute more to that than an extended re-litigation of the last eight years. Already, we have seen how that kind of effort only leads those in Washington to different sides laying blame, and can distract us from focusing our time, our effort, and our politics on the challenges of the future.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: if we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if we cannot stand for those core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall.

The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last two hundred and twenty two years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights - through World War and Cold War - because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way. It hasn't always been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are those who think that America's safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. We hear such voices today. But the American people have resisted that temptation. And though we have made our share of mistakes and course corrections, we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength, and a beacon to the world.

Now, this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and - in all probability - ten years from now. Neither I nor anyone else can standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives. But I can say with certainty that my Administration - along with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic men and women who defend our national security - will do everything in our power to keep the American people safe. And I do know with certainty that we can defeat al Qaeda. Because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies, and they will never be able to do that if we stay true to who we are; if we forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals.

This must be our common purpose. I ran for President because I believe that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America - it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people, as one nation. We have done so before in times that were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again. Thank you, God Bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

CONTINUE READING...

Torture Memo Probe to be released

Get ready for the circus o' fun...

The Justice Department is nearing the end of its probe into Bush administration lawyers who wrote secret memos approving harsh interrogation techniques.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of a letter from the Justice Department informing two members of Congress that a key deadline in the inquiry expired Monday.

The inquiry has become a politically-loaded guessing game, with some advocating criminal charges against the lawyers, and others urging the matter be dropped.

The letter did not indicate what the findings of the final report will be. Jay Bybee, John Yoo, and Steven Bradbury worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and played key roles in crafting the legal justification for techniques critics call torture.

Read more at HuffPo.

CONTINUE READING...

We don't "torture"...

The military agency that provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as 'torture' in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce 'unreliable information.'

Read more at washingtonpost.com.

CONTINUE READING...

Rice, Cheney Approved Waterboarding

I'm not saying it's a surprise.... I'm just sayin'....

Then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice verbally OK'd the CIA's request to subject alleged al-Qaida terrorist Abu Zubaydah to waterboarding in July 2002, a decision memorialized a few days later in a secret memo that the Obama administration declassified last week.

Read more at Rice, Cheney Approved Waterboarding

CONTINUE READING...

US Torture: Voices from the Black Sites

War crimes. That's what we call them when other countries do this...

We think time and elections will cleanse our fallen world but they will not. Since November, George W. Bush and his administration have seemed to be rushing away from us at accelerating speed, a dark comet hurtling toward the ends of the universe. The phrase 'War on Terror'—the signal slogan of that administration, so cherished by the man who took pride in proclaiming that he was 'a wartime president'—has acquired in its pronouncement a permanent pair of quotation marks, suggesting something questionable, something mildly embarrassing: something past. And yet the decisions that that president made, especially the monumental decisions taken after the attacks of September 11, 2001—decisions about rendition, surveillance, interrogation—lie strewn about us still, unclaimed and unburied, like corpses freshly dead.

Warning: There's a lot more, but it's really really ugly...
Read more at The New York Review of Books.

CONTINUE READING...

President Obama’s Address to Congress

The weight of this crisis will not determine the destiny of this nation. The answers to our problems don't lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and our universities, in our fields and our factories, in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth.

Those qualities that have made America the greatest force of progress and prosperity in human history we still possess in ample measure. What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more."

Dang, Poor Nancy Pelosi must have been exhausted after jumping up and sitting down all night.

Other precious moments:
"We can no longer afford to put health care reform on hold." Cut to Hillary Clinton in hot pink in the front row.

"...with the name of Orrin Hatch...." Cut to Orrin, looking down reading his program... Hullo....

Joe Lieberman, slow-clapping at "eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq..."

"I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war." Even John McCain gets up for applause.

"I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture." John McCain is up again. (And yes, he should have led on that issue.)
More stuff:

• Video from the NY Times.
• Transcript from the NYTimes.com.
• HuffPo's take on the applause lines and the laugh lines.
• Reaction from insta-polling, "A CBS News poll of approximately 500 people saw approval of the president rise from 62 percent before the speech to 69 percent afterward."
• Pundit reaction roundup from HuffPo.
  
• CNN calls it Obama's "Morning in America" moment.
• GOP response from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. "Dude, Bobby, hello? This is a rebuttal. BOBBY! Stop nattering on about your childhood. Seriously, WTF? Stop telling stories. Stop it. Now."
  
• "After watching Jindal," one Democratic strategist emailed, "I'd pay a lot of money to be back watching a Palin speech."
• And MSNBC host during the Jindal debacle with an editorial "Oh God."
• The Miami Herald story of Leonard Abess, the Bank CEO who took his $60 million bonus and distributed it to his employees.

CONTINUE READING...

Panetta Chosen as C.I.A. Chief in Surprise Step - NYTimes.com

Really? Leon Panetta? Are they just discombobulated from the Bill Richardson withdrawal?

Leon E. Panetta, a former congressman and White House chief of staff, has been selected by President-elect Barack Obama to head the Central Intelligence Agency. The choice, disclosed Monday by Democratic officials, immediately revealed divisions in the party as two senior lawmakers questioned why Mr. Obama would nominate a candidate with limited experience in intelligence matters.

The job was the last unfilled major post for Mr. Obama, who has criticized the agency for using interrogation methods he characterized as torture. Democratic officials said Mr. Obama had selected Mr. Panetta for his managerial skills, his bipartisan standing, and the foreign policy and budget experience he gained under President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Panetta has himself been a sharp critic of the agency’s interrogation practices. Some Democrats expressed strong support for the choice, with Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, describing him as “one of the finest public servants I have ever served with and dealt with since he left the White House.”

More in the NY Times.

CONTINUE READING...

US and Them

So how does the rest of the world see us? The UK Telegraph conducted a poll last June of Europeans and overwhelmingly, Obama was the winner over McCain."He is especially popular in Italy, where a remarkable 70 per cent would vote for him if they could. In France, historically the European country with the strongest anti-American sentiment, 65 per cent would back Mr Obama. In Germany, the Democratic Senator would get 67 per cent of the vote - while Mr McCain would receive a derisory six per cent. Mr Obama appears to have made less of an impact in Britain than elsewhere in Europe. A relatively modest 49 per cent of Britons would vote for him, while 14 per cent would back Mr McCain - twice the totals favouring the Republican candidate in Germany or France."

Before Obama's whirlwind tour of Europe last summer, Bill Schneider of CNN reported on his already growing popularity in countries OTHER than the US. "To his European fans, Obama is the symbol of American renewal. They know three things about him. That he is young. That he is African-American. And that he has a Muslim name. Europeans live in countries with large, unassimilated Muslim minorities. The idea that someone with Obama's name and background could become President of the United States astonishes and impresses them. Europeans are thrilled by the idea that the United States can suddenly transform itself from a pariah in the world into an inspiration to the world. As a woman put it to me in Paris: 'We want America back.''' So do we. So do we.

Imagine how a President McCain--or worse, a President Palin--would play around the world. Thanks to Katie for this perspective from the UK Guardian on Sarah Palin's debate showing: "And so she proceeded, with an almost surreal disregard for the subjects she was supposed to be discussing, to unleash fusillades of scripted attack lines, platitudes, lies, gibberish and grating references to her own pseudo-folksy authenticity. It was an appalling display. The only reason it was not widely described as such is that too many American pundits don't even try to judge the truth, wisdom or reasonableness of the political rhetoric they are paid to pronounce upon. Instead, they imagine themselves as interpreters of a mythical mass of "average Americans" who they both venerate and despise.

From a certain point of view, Die Zeit in Germany argues, an Obama administration has in essence already begun. "No, not the tenure of President Obama. Because Obama the candidate may still lose. But the governing philosophy of Barack Obama, which has already conquered America. With the advent of the still-embattled rescue package for Wall Street's banking giants, comes the inevitable end of an era which began with Ronald Reagan: free markets, low taxes, deregulation."

Even if he loses the presidential election to McCain (How likely is that? According to fivethirtyeight.com, there's a 5% chance...), he's already won, said an editorial in the English-language Khaleej Times, a daily based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. "If McCain is America's past," it said, "Obama is its future."

Speaking of the past, in case you had any doubt about "torture" and "official US Policy," The Washington Post reports today that "the Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding against al-Qaeda suspects -- documents prompted by worries among intelligence officials about a possible backlash if details of the program became public...The memos were the first -- and, for years, the only -- tangible expressions of the administration's consent for the CIA's use of harsh measures to extract information from captured al-Qaeda leaders, the sources said. As early as the spring of 2002, several White House officials, including then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Cheney, were given individual briefings by Tenet and his deputies, the officials said. Rice, in a statement to congressional investigators last month, confirmed the briefings and acknowledged that the CIA director had pressed the White House for 'policy approval.'"

Don't forget that in February, 2008, McCain voted AGAINST the Senate bill that would have forced "the C.I.A. to abide by the rules set out in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which prohibits physical force and lists approved interrogation methods." Feel free to allow the outrage to direct your voting patterns.

In other news, The AP reports that VP and Palin-model Dick Cheney was hospitalized today for a heart arrthymia--I know what you're thinking-- Cheney has a heart??

CONTINUE READING...

Debatable

'It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards.'
--The White Queen, Through The Looking Glass


Pity poor Jim Lehrer. He had been promised a debate and the McCain camp kept that up in the air until this morning. He'd been promised a particular format--candidates fighting each other with him watching-- and they kept throwing their punches through Jim.

First off, in case you didn't see it or your DVR was "on the McCain"--I mean "on the fritz"-- Mississippi Presidential Debate transcript and video in that cool interactive feature on the New York Times.
Nielsen estimates 57 million viewers took in the event.

In case you're interested, Obama's campaign liveblogged factchecks throughout the debate, but more fun is Think Progress' liveblog of the debate, which includes a few fabulous "Let's go to the videotape" YouTube links. McCain's camp reportedly did send out email "factchecks" throughout the night, though I didn't receive any. Hmmm, I wonder if they know that I'm secretly a liberal...

Yeah, alright. You got me--I'm in the tank for Obama. But if you want my personal take, 36+ hours later my impression of the debate is of a nice calm, cool guy debating an angry, old grouch. If I actually worked for McCain [shudder], I'd tell him to lay off the aggressive tactics and try to look more like a kindly, wise grandpa. Throughout the debate, his stand-offish body language and stiff posture all suggest defensiveness to me. But as I don't work for him, don't tell him. Frivolous video for today: McCain's song and dance.

The upshot from Politico (with additions from Arianna Huffington and moi):

Number of times Sen. McCain referred to Sen. Obama as "Barack": zero
Number of times Sen. Obama referred to Sen. McCain as "John": 23

McCain zingers: "Sen. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. It's hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left. … I'm not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I'm president of the United States. I don't even have a seal yet."
Arianna adds: "For McCain, it was his line about Putin ("I looked into his eyes and saw three letters: KGB), and his mocking line about sitting down with Ahmadinejad."

Obama zingers: "Coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. … I've got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant — from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopek, given to me in Green Bay. … John mentioned me being wildly liberal — mostly that's just me opposing George Bush's policies." "John, you like to pretend the war began in 2007."
Arianna: "For Obama, it was his run on Iraq, his "muddle through" riff ("you don't muddle through Osama... you don't muddle through the Taliban"), and his reminder of McCain's gaffe about not meeting with the prime minister of Spain."

Best Obama sound bite: "You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong."

Best McCain sound bite: "We've seen this stubbornness before in this administration — [for Obama] to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded, and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge is — shows to me that we … need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that."

Arianna adds: Did John McCain really try to reclaim the high ground on torture after having caved on the issue earlier in the year? And did he really profess his love for veterans after having fought against the new GI Bill?
ME adds: Did Mr. "I Don't-Need-Any-On-The-Job-Training" McCain actually call Pakistan's president Kadari? Um, his name is Zardari. And I guess he should have practiced saying Ahmadinejad more. Even Sarah Palin managed it better. (A waggish commentator notes that McCain could just practice by saying "I may need a job.")

Declared Obama the winner (ME's editorial details in parentheses): ABC's George Stephanopoulos, pollster Frank Luntz on Fox, Slate's John Dickerson, Time magazine's Mark Halperin (Obama A-, McCain B-), pollster and Clinton adviser Dick Morris, CBS News instant poll (40% Obama - 22% McCain - 38% tie) and CNN post-debate poll (51% Obama-38% McCain). Also, Independents in the MediaCurves focus group "gave the debate to Obama 61-39. They also think he won every individual segment." More poll results.
Arianna gives style points to Obama, "who came across as relaxed and gracious (too gracious; enough with the repeated claims that "John is right"). McCain looked like he forgot to take his Metamucil."

Declared McCain the winner: Politico's Roger Simon: "The Mac is back", Fortune magazine's Nina Easton, The Weekly Standard's William Kristol and Fred Barnes, Fox News Texting Poll and Drudge online poll.

Tie: Republican strategist Mike Murphy, who said on MSNBC: "No game-changer, and we're going to have a rematch."

Huffpo rounds up some more post-debate commentary from editorial boards. And an observation from ThinkProgress: "ABC's Charlie Gibson and PBS's David Brooks and Mark Shields note that McCain never looked at Obama during the debate."

============================

Palinista Update

By the way, we saw an awful lot of Joe Biden after the debate, commenting on how Barack Obama did. Where was Governor Palin weighing in with her commentary on her running mate's performance ? Oh yeah, they can't let her out without a teleprompter. The National Review's blog "The Stump" quotes Wolf Blitzer on CNN: "We've been getting some emails from viewers out there wondering why we spent some time interviewing Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee and not Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee. We would have loved to interview--we'd still love to interview Sarah Palin. Unfortunately we asked, we didn't get that interview...We're hoping that Sarah Palin will join us at some point down the road."

Maybe she was working on a "do-over" of her interview with Katie Couric. Tina Fey strikes again with another pitch perfect "Sarah Palin" in an interview with Katie Couric. The wacky thing is that she's not really parodying Sarah Palin, she's just quoting her. "Like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this. We're saying, 'Hey, why bail out Fanny and Freddie and not me?' But ultimately what the bailout does is, help those that are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy to help...uh...it's gotta be all about job creation, too. Also, too, shoring up our economy and putting Fannie and Freddy back on the right track and so healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending...'cause Barack Obama, y'know...has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans, also, having a dollar value meal at restaurants. That's gonna help. But one in five jobs being created today under the umbrella of job creation. That, you know...Also."

Even the National Review's Kathleen Parker, once "in the tank" (What the heck does that mean anyhow??) for Sarah Palin, now says, "As we've seen and heard more from John McCain's running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion."

Oh, and in case you're not outraged enough about Palin's utter insensitivity as a human being, note that while Palin was mayor in Wasilla, the town began charging rape victims for the costs of their own rape kits. Classy, real classy.

1-800-CASH4JUNK

Well, looks like we're buying it, folks. Details are in the NY TImes article, but I somehow keep missing this piece of info: which companies exactly are we buying junk from? Just anybody who applies?

To the right, a humorous juxtaposition of articles that I noticed this morning on Politico.

The New York Times has an interesting assessment of the real reasons why AIG (too big to fail) got a government bailout deal when Lehman (Let the market decide) got the "Go Fish!": "As the group, led by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., pondered the collapse of one of America's oldest investment banks, Lehman Brothers, a more dangerous threat emerged: American International Group, the world's largest insurer, was teetering. A.I.G. needed billions of dollars to right itself and had suddenly begged for help.The only Wall Street chief executive participating in the meeting was Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Mr. Paulson's former firm. Mr. Blankfein had particular reason for concern. Although it was not widely known, Goldman, a Wall Street stalwart that had seemed immune to its rivals' woes, was A.I.G.'s largest trading partner, according to six people close to the insurer who requested anonymity because of confidentiality agreements. A collapse of the insurer threatened to leave a hole of as much as $20 billion in Goldman's side, several of these people said."

He Came, He Saw, He Screwed it Up

"The Republican source, with direct knowledge of the negotiations, said that GOPers and McCain were 'scared about the press perception' that they were at fault for 'blowing the thing up.' The takeover of Washington Mutual on Thursday combined with the continued downturn in the futures and credit markets "also scared them," to the point that a bailout deal seemed within the realm of possibility 'over the weekend.'"

And although you might expect that (with the "right" bailout plan being so all-fire important and all) that after the debate was done, John McCain would race to Nancy Pelosi's office to be there in person, all night, at the negotiating table in Washington. After the debate, he was on the Hill Saturday for about 90 minutes according to the Washington Post (who also deliciously describes "chaos" in the McCain camp during pre-debate preparations): "McCain did not go to Capitol Hill, preferring to make calls from his headquarters. 'He can effectively do what he needs to do by phone,' [McCain adviser Mark] Salter said. 'He's calling members on both sides, talking to people in the administration, helping out as he can.'" Oh. He can do it "by phone," can he? You don't say.

Maybe after dinner? Politico reports that Saturday night, McCain was at the very chic DC restaurant CityZen. Check out their $110 tasting menu. I guess, since his "services are no longer required after he um, achieved bipartisanship last Thursday, he can settle into a nice "Sweet Onion Chiboust with a Sarawak Pepper Sable and English Thyme Broth...." (Maybe I should check it out if I can ever afford fine-dining again...) Hey, John, "arugula-eating" is cheaper.

So what do people think about McNuts' Mc-neuvering last week? Even conservatives are saying: Whuh-HUH? "It just proves his campaign is governed by tactics and not ideology," said Republican consultant Craig Shirley, who advised McCain earlier in this cycle.

Hmmm...Instant poll: is it better to govern with:
a) Tactics
b) ideology
c) NONE OF THE ABOVE
US News and World Report's John Farrell assesses Obama's handling of the "Political Circus comes to town" as Presidential, whereas..."Given the Republican nominee's untethered (there's that word again) performance in the last three weeks, during which he has swung wildly from Oblivious to Panicky by way of Blurt and Bluster, McCain's performance comes as no surprise."

The Post is no more sympathetic: "John McCain's sudden intervention in Washington's deliberations over the Wall Street bailout could not have been more out of sync with what was actually happening...McCain's boisterous intervention -- and particularly his grandstanding on the debate -- was less a presidential act than the tactical ploy of a man worried that his chances of becoming president might be slipping away."

Of course, there's always the nutcase. Steve Huntley says in the Chicago Sun-Times: "What we are talking about here is leadership in a time of crisis...Be it campaign finance regulation, immigration reform or climate change, he has never hesitated to take a leadership position on an issue he sees as critical to the country..." Hmmm, who is Huntley? I seem to remember that name... Oh yeah, he was Robert Novak's editor, the one who let Novak publish the column that leaked Valerie Plame's identity. Oh. Him.

And what is with McCain's constant lies? Is it self-delusion? Jonathan Chait at the New Republic has some interesting perspectives: "McCain has contempt for anybody who stands between him and the presidency. McCain views himself as the ultimate patriot. He loves his country so much that he cannot let it fall into the hands of an unworthy rival. (They all turn out to be unworthy.) Viewed in this way, doing whatever it takes to win is not an act of selfishness but an act of patriotism."

From the NY Times this morning, hints of NEW! FRESH! headaches for the McCain campaign: "Mr. McCain portrays himself as a Washington maverick unswayed by special interests, referring recently to lobbyists as "birds of prey." Yet in his current campaign, more than 40 fund-raisers and top advisers have lobbied or worked for an array of gambling interests — including tribal and Las Vegas casinos, lottery companies and online poker purveyors." The Times also has a graphic with a dizzying array of McCain connections to the gambling lobby.

===================

Stupid Human Tricks

And in a good old classic run on the bank, WaMu customers went in this morning to demand their $10 back. Following the largest US bank failure in history. JP Morgan Chase acquired WaMu after the bank was seized Thursday night, and all operations continued as normal on Friday morning, even though depositors pulled $17 billion from the bank. (I don't know why those instant stock quotes embedded in text of the above article bother me so much. Makes me a little panicky frankly.)

Thanks to Betty for tracking the Dealbook blog's moment-to-moment coverage: Do you have money in Wachovia-- which may be "Citi-chovia Traveling Group" by the time I get done typing this sentence? A scorecard in case you've lost track of who lost what and who bought what in the last, oh, week and a half.

By the way, David Lazarus in the LA Times notes that : "As our friends in the financial sector were passing the hat among taxpayers last week for $700 billion in bailouts to cover their crappy mortgage investments, they were simultaneously condemning the House of Representatives' passage of a "Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights," which aims to crack down on some of the industry's more troublesome practices."

A look at the Argentinian Financial Crisis in the early 2000's. Hmmm. Hints of what's ahead?

German police arrested suspected terrorists on a KLM flight: "German police raided a plane in Cologne just before it was taking off Friday and arrested two ethnic Somalis, saying they found a suicide note that claimed the men wanted to fight a holy war and die in a terror attack." Have a good flight.

CBS execs were reportedly upset that Dave Letterman patched into internal video feeds to show John McCain getting a makeup job while chatting with Katie Couric when he was supposed to be on Dave's show. Who cares? It was great TV.
Day 2: Dave still on McCain about ditching him. "McCain spokeswoman Nicole Wallace said Thursday that the campaign 'felt this wasn't a night for comedy...We deeply regret offending Mr. Letterman, but our candidate's priority at this moment is to focus on this crisis,' Wallace said on NBC's 'Today' show."

And in case you didn't see it, watch a pretty savvy Chris Rock on Larry King. (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) "The choice isn't Republican or Democrat. The choice is you got a guy that's worth $150 million with 12 houses against a guy who's worth a million dollars with one house.The guy with one house really cares about losing a house, because he is homeless. The other guy can lose five houses and still got a bunch of houses. Does this make any sense? Am I the only one that sees this?" I must ask again, why is it that the comedians are the ones with the clear-eyed view of what's really going on in the political process?

On the Road again

The campaign marches on. Obama and Biden stood in the pouring rain to talk with 26,000 Virginians.

Gallup Daily had Obama up three points Saturday. and by this morning, he was up by EIGHT points. I know it's meaningless, but it make me feel better. The Electoral Vote shift has been more pronounced though. Enjoy the trending...

37 days to the election! Reminder again that time is running out--for many states, you must register to vote well in advance of the elections. RockTheVote's list of voter registration deadlines. And if you're voting absentee, you may have to get your ballot in weeks before the Nov 4th Election date. Declare Yourself has links to each state's voter information page where you can find out how to get your absentee ballot. Get those friends of yours in Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire (WTF?), Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina and Florida (YES! FLORIDA!) to get out there and vote!

CONTINUE READING...

Bouncing Edition

Welcome to the hangover. I know we're all trying to get back to normal life after the frenzy of Olympics, DNC, Gustav, Sarah Palin, RNC. I have got to pry myself off of CNN and Wonkette.com. Or at least CNN.

Convention Leftovers
Me, myself and I. Someone actually stayed awake long enough to count how many times John Bush --Ooops, I mean John McCain--said "I"? "When can we expect Fournier to tally up the number of times John "cause greater than self" McCain used the pronoun "I" in his convention speech?"

And in the "Where am I? Who am I?" department, you might have noticed, if you stayed awake, that John Bush-- I mean, McCain-- seemed to be standing in front of a chromakey green screen during his speech. No, it wasn't a green screen, it was actually a lawn in front of a building, which you saw in the long shots during the speech. But what building? Turns out they picked the Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood. An odd choice-- why would you do that? Daily Kos has some insights. Perhaps they meant to use a photo of Walter Reed Army Medical Center. And an 18-inch model of Stonehenge. Or maybe they used it because it's where Jimmy Smits announced his election bid on the West Wing? McCain camp? Not talking to the biased liberal scummy media types.

Oh, and by the way, 80s band Heart wants their song back: Nancy and Ann Wilson emailed the following statement regarding the use of the song "Barracuda" to intro Sarah Palin at the RNC: "Sarah Palin's views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song 'Barracuda' no longer be used to promote her image. The song 'Barracuda' was written in the late 70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The 'barracuda' represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there's irony in Republican strategists' choice to make use of it there."

Factcheck.org has a few more details on the truth-torturing that took place at the RNC: "Sarah Palin's much-awaited speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night may have shown she could play the role of attack dog, but it also showed her to be short on facts when it came to touting her own record and going after Obama's."

But What About the Bounce?
Second by second (not really, but it looks like it) polling from Rasmussen. And more information from the Gallup daily poll. Frankly I wonder if there's such a thing as "bounce" from the conventions anymore. According to Electoral-vote.com, Dems are now leading in CO, IA, NV, NM, ND and OH.

Obama's campaign announced that it's met its $10 million mark, with contributions from over 130,000 donors. Republicans have raised a whole $1 million.

A few Sarah Palin items, on discount
Speaking of bouncing, no, we're not done with Babygate. I'm sorry, I'm not satisfied. It's not the pregnancy, it's not the teen, it's the certainty in my mind that there are lies being told here. Vanity Fair weighs in with a timeline. (Bonus: Take the poll at the bottom of the page, is the baby Sarah's or Bristol's?)

And The Daily Show had a great little segment on "Bristol Palin's decision to keep the baby." Samantha Bee tries to remember another word for that--you know, another word for "decision."

Troopergate Update: Timing, timing is everything. (Just like timing is critical when you're in labor.) "French had initially indicated that subpoenas likely wouldn't be necessary, since Palin had pledged her full cooperation. But earlier this week, Palin's lawyer warned that unless the case were handed over to the state personnel board -- whose three members are appointed by the governor -- Palin would not be made available to testify." Stay tuned.

Final thoughtsAre McCain and Bush the same person? Have you ever see one drinking water while the other is talking...? (YouTube)

My doctor says I need to get my blood pressure down, or at least if I had better health insurance, that's what my doctor would say. So in coming days, I'll be cutting back my ranting, but as always, you can continue to procrastinate on my political page. And you in the swing states get out there and REGISTER TO VOTE NOW!

CONTINUE READING...