You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (71)

PLAYS: (602)

January 14, 2010 CURRNT TV SUPER NEWS

Breaking? Not so much, but since I'm in the holiday spirit I thought I would give our readers the gift of laughter. As our UN Ambassador, John Bolton did almost as much damage to our reputation around the world as his boss, George Bush. Besides being wrong about just about everything, he was also a huge supporter of our former Vice President, Dick Cheney. So, it comes as no surprise that he penned this glowing, fact-free, delusional fluff piece -- proclaiming Dick Cheney -- Conservative of the year: (warning - link goes to Human Events)

In Washingtonian “inside the Beltway” terms, the most amazing aspect of former Vice President Dick Cheney’s new clout is that he is achieving it the old-fashioned way: talking about public policy. He is not running for President or any other office. He has not formed a PAC or a D.C. lobbying firm. He is not dishing on former colleagues, not spreading gossip, not settling scores. He is, instead, writing a memoir about his extensive career in public service, and giving occasional speeches and interviews, mostly on national and homeland security policy, long his central focus.

If you're feeling brave and looking for some extra laughs, click through to the original article and check out the comments. I'll start you off with #1 from commenter "Square Root":

The simple reason Dick Cheny causes angst to the ACLU atheist, heathen, pagan conglomerate is because he is so fearlessly honest. Conservatives such as he and Sarah Palin, threaten, by the power of their veracity to undermine those who must bribe fellow politicians in their last ditch effort to pass a government health care scheme that is rejected by 61% of Americans.

It is only a matter of time before these enemies of the people will fall on their own swords. Their bag of dirty tricks is nearly exhausted. They can not win on merit. Read on...

Ornery Bastard: Hundreds, if not thousands of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels as part of a little-noticed initiative by the Obama administration to curb K Street's influence in Washington.

The Satirical Political Report: White House party crashers were Dick and Liz Cheney in disguise

Brad DeLong: Dubai: Why, yes, our collateral in underwater. Why do you ask?

American Street: Despair Not!

Bernard Avishai: The real meaning of 'The Freeze'

Dennis Perrin: Children of the Grave

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (68)

PLAYS: (339)

October 20, 2009 PBS News Hour

The tenure of Berkeley law professor John Yoo has come under fire amid a backlash over the role he played in the Bush administration, advising on the legalities of now-controversial interrogation tactics used on terror suspects. Spencer Michels reports.

SPENCER MICHELS: Since the beginning of the school year, protesters dressed as prisoners or detainees have dogged law professor John Yoo at the University of California at Berkeley. They want the university to fire him for advising the Bush administration, as an attorney in the Justice Department, that it could legally torture suspected terrorists to get information.

PROTESTER: This is a not just a question of academic opinions. This is a question of war crimes. People like John Yoo, these people should be fired.

SPENCER MICHELS: Forty-two-year-old John Yoo has taught here since 1993, except for 2001 to 2003, when he worked for the Justice Department in the Office of Legal Counsel.

During those years, after 9/11, the U.S. was interrogating prisoners, suspected terrorists, at places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Yoo wrote several memos on how far the interrogators could go in pressuring prisoners to reveal information. Those memos argued that techniques such as water- boarding, sleep deprivation, and exploiting a detainee's fear of insects were, in fact, legal.

Yoo's actions have reverberated throughout Boalt Hall, the Berkeley law school where Yoo teaches. Students and faculty are debating the bounds of academic freedom, and whether a professor should be held responsible for controversial work done outside the university.

DAVID ARABELLA, law student: I believe that he does have a right to teach here, because people can have controversial views. But, personally, I'm not going to enroll in his class.

SPENCER MICHELS: The law school dean, Christopher Edley, who has served in several Democratic administrations, has been besieged by messages, the majority against Professor Yoo.

Continue reading...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (826)

PLAYS: (1819)

Liz Cheney told Fox News' Chris Wallace that President Barack Obama should not travel to Oslo in December to accept the Nobel Prize. Cheney called the prize a "farce" that could only be legitimized if family of U.S. military accepted it.

"I think the president himself understands he didn't earn this prize and therefore the notion that this white house has said he would go to Oslo to accept the prize would add to the farce," said Cheney.

She offered the following proposal: "I think what he ought to do, frankly, is send the mother of a fallen American soldier to accept the prize on behalf of the U.S. military. Frankly, to send the message to remind the Nobel committee that each one of them sleeps soundly at night because the U.S. armed forces, because the U.S. military is the greatest peacekeeping force in the world today."

It should come as no surprise that neoconservative columnist Bill Kristol disagrees with the Nobel committee. He responded to the award with sarcasm. "It's hard for me to be objective about this because I'm so disappointed personally. I was up early Friday morning. I thought the phone might ring, you know. Pundits for peace. I deserve it pretty much. President Obama and I have done about the same amount to bring about world peace, I think," said Kristol.

The Obama administration has been sticking to many of the tactics Bush used in his efforts in dealing with terrorism. The FISA fiasco was telling and now we have The Patriot Act. It's not surprising that any president would like to keep the status quo when they take office if they've been handed an office that has more power over our civil liberties than ever before. Sure, Obama is not Bush or Cheney, and I doubt he'd ever act like them, but that is no justification for not reining in the Patriot Act.

Glenn Greenwald

Reining in the excesses of the Patriot Act (and, relatedly, of ever-expanding eavesdropping powers) has long been a top agenda item for civil liberties groups -- and, at least so they claimed, for Democrats generally. In fact, when Obama voted for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 last year in the middle of the campaign, he emphatically vowed that he would "fix" the problems with the FISA framework. But right as these reforms are finally being considered, the administration seizes on the Zazi case to insist that no such changes should be made:

At the same time, the Obama administration is pressing Congress to move swiftly to reauthorize three provisions of the USA Patriot Act set to expire in late December. They include the use of "roving wiretaps" to track movement, e-mail and phone communications, a tool that federal officials used in the weeks leading up to Zazi's arrest. . . .

"The Zazi case was the first test of this administration being able to successfully uncover and deal with this type of threat in the United States," a senior administration official said. "It demonstrated that we were able to successfully neutralize this threat, and to have insight into it, with existing statutory authorities, with the system as it currently operates."

So the Obama administration has its first allegedly big Terrorism case, and they can hardly contain themselves as they exploit it to justify a continuation of the very Patriot Act and FISA powers which Democrats (and, in the case of FISA, Obama himself) long claimed to oppose. Indeed, key Obama ally Dianne Feinstein has worked diligently in the Senate not just to block Patriot Act reforms, but to make the law even worse, and has repeatedly cited the Zazi case to justify that.

Glenn posted the above video from Julian Sanchez, who destroys the FOX Noise fearmongering arguments of why we just have to have FISA and TPA.

Cato's Julian Sanchez examines -- and absolutely destroys -- the fear-mongering claims from Fox News about efforts to reform the Patriot Act and FISA, with a particular focus on Fox's efforts to use the Zazi plot to justify the need for these powers

.

David E’s Fablog: Race Riot, sponsored by corporate lobbyists

Glenn Greenwald: There's nothing new about right wing insanity...or stupidity

distributorcap NY: All American Children Left Behind

Scott Horton: Two Marine Generals take Cheney to the woodshed

$Blind In Texas$: I'm a Ninther

AMERICAblog News: One year after the fall of Lehman, few changes

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (56)

PLAYS: (194)

September 12, 2009 News Corp- Fox & Friends

Heather: Shorter Ralph Peters- Killing more brown people solves everything and we need that "decider" W back. Or maybe he meant Dick Cheney. God knows Bush wasn't deciding anything for eight years. We need to be getting the hell out of that country, not sending more troops.

Crooked Timber: Sunstein Becked

Emptywheel: Cheney's Sabotage of Counter-Terrorism

The Washington Independent: When is a Czar not a Czar?

Relaxed Politics: The REAL problems with Obama's speech yesterday

Frank Chow: This horse exhaust has been working on the dim bulbs since the 60s so expect more of the same

HOLY CRAP: Hope fading fast...Church/State schism in Italy...Mary Magdalene health care...The Temperature of Hell...Icons...Bible according to Zach...Silly Clothing...WTF Moment... Jesus on a toilet...Amazing Jesus...Helicopter to church...Christ and the Black Heart...

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (100)

PLAYS: (232)

September 02, 2009 MSNBC Keith Olbermann

OLBERMANN: In the 48 hours since Dick Cheney called investigating torture an outrageous political act to former prosecutors, one from each party say they disagree.

In our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN: The torture probe is now getting support not only from former prosecutor Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic U.S. senator who joins us in a moment, but also from the nation‘s former top prosecutor, Republican Alberto Gonzales.

First, the senator, the former U.S. attorney in the “National Law Journal,” laying out the legal foundations that justify that require investigation. First, the corpus delicti, the body of evidence establishing the possible existence of a crime. In this case, the Bush administration‘s admission of waterboarding, an act defined as criminal by international treaty and by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit in 1984.

Mr. Whitehouse writing, quote, “For there to be investigation now is unexceptional. The only exceptional is the parties involved: the former vice president of the United States, his counsel, David Addington, Office of Legal Counsel lawyer John Yoo.”

Congressman Jerry Nadler making the same case on FOX News where, of course, the emcee was contractually obligated to interrupt as soon as Nadler mentioned Cheney.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NADLER: The law says very clearly that it is the obligation of the attorney general to investigate, to see whether crimes were committed any time there was torture under American jurisdiction. He must do that, if he didn‘t do that, he‘d be breaking the law. My criticism of the attorney general is that he should not limit the investigation to people in the field who may have committed the torture, to people who may have ordered, such as the vice president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: But it was Fredo, poor Fredo who grabbed the headlines by going against the family. He broke their hearts.

Quote, “Let me just say that I have a great deal of respect for General Holder. I think that the attorney general would have made this on his own and I think as the chief prosecutor of the United States, he should make the decision on his own. Eric Holder is looking at conduct that goes beyond the instructions given by the Department of Justice. And if people go beyond that, I think it is legitimate to question, to examine that conduct to ensure that people are held accountable for the actions they take even if it‘s the actions in prosecuting the war on terror.”

With us now, as promised, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

Great thanks for your time tonight, Senator.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D), RHODE ISLAND: Good to be with you.

OLBERMANN: First, your thoughts on Mr. Gonzales endorsing this investigation. Do you think his approval is sincere here? Or is it a function of relief that the aim is no higher than the operatives at the interrogative level?

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (91)

PLAYS: (337)

September 01, 2009 MSNBC HARDBALL

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1242)

PLAYS: (2822)

I missed this one, but went back for it after reading this Tweet from my friend John Amato to Glenn Greenwald.

Matthews: Well let me make it simple Jay, and I know you're a straight reporter. I'll go to Chris on this for opinion. I'll go and try to get some opinion. You know why. Because if the head of this network said lead with O.J. tonight, I'd lead with O.J. tonight. If he said said lead with Michael Jackson, I'd lead with Michael Jackson. But I wouldn't get in trouble for it because he told me to.

If the Vice President of the United States says we're going to the dark side. We're going to do whatever's necessary to get the information. We're going to use all those subterranean roots or methods that are perhaps not pleasant. If he told us to do that, and I did it, how could I get prosecuted for it?

Uhhhh...because your boss telling you what to cover for your "news" show doesn't violate the Geneva Conventions. Just a guess.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1490)

PLAYS: (6741)

August 24, 2009 News Corp

(Heather): Wow. Bill-O actually put someone on his show who does a good job of shooting down his talking points. O'Reilly thinks that no one wants torture investigated and that it's just a witch hunt, and that our torture program was "an absolute success". Jami Floyd hits back at him with some logic, like the Department of Justice is not supposed to be politicized, and that "we have federal laws on torture for a reason".

I guess after all of those years of the Bush administration using the D.O.J. as a political arm of the White House, Bill-O is having a little bit of trouble understanding that how the Bush administration did things is not exactly how they are supposed to work.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (114)

PLAYS: (255)

From The Ed Schultz Show, Jerrold Nadler says the appointment of a Special Prosecutor doesn't go far enough and that the law is that when torture occurs under American jurisdiction there must be an investigation of everyone who may have been involved and if warranted prosecutions. Nadler expressed concern that we aren't being aggressive enough and limiting the investigations too much. He also adds this:

Nadler: We are well into territory already, where because of the pardon of Nixon after Watergate and the people around him, because of in the Iran Contra, we're getting into territory where it becomes taken for granted that high officials can violate the law and get away with it.

Schultz: Yep.

Nadler: If high officials violated the law here, if Cheney did, if Rice did, etc., they've got to be prosecuted to show that no one is above the law.

I agree with his point that no one is above the law. I disagree that we're "getting into territory" where high officials take it for granted that they will never be held accountable for their law breaking. We're well past that point now.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (73)

PLAYS: (198)

August 24, 2009 News Corp

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, an ugly battle just got a little bit worse today. Today, the White House released parts of a classified, now declassified, CIA report on detainee interrogation, new allegations of prisoner abuse, a detainee allegedly threatened with an unloaded gun and a power drill. The report also states that the detention and interrogation programs prevented terrorist activity.

Meanwhile, across the Potomac at the Justice Department, the attorney general launched a preliminary investigation to see if crimes were committed by interrogators. As you might imagine, lines are being drawn in the sand here in Washington.

Joining us live is Congressman Pete Hoekstra. He is the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, this certainly is the talk of the nation today, or the talk of Washington, at least. Your thoughts on the -- it's actually sort of a -- it's a preliminary investigation to see whether or not there should be an investigation or even a prosecution.

REP. PETE HOEKSTRA (R), MICHIGAN: Well, I -- you know, this is really a time for the president to start showing some leadership. You know, the attorney general is now freelancing. The president for months has been saying, We need to look forward, we need to look ahead, I don't want to look back. Today there were press reports that his director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, supposedly has threatened to quit. You have Nancy Pelosi saying that the CIA lied, that they lie all the time.

And the most important thing is we still have men and women in combat. Things in Afghanistan aren't going that well. Just when we need a very, very strong CIA to give our men and women in the field the kind of intelligence that they need to stay safe and to defeat our enemy, it appears that different parts of the administration are attacking the very organization that we need to keep America safe!

These aren't new allegations. Our intelligence committee -- we had these reports in 2004, 2005. Eric Holder wants to go over old ground. This ground has been gone over before. It's not time to reopen the book on this.

Continue reading »