The Torture Report

The Senate Intelligence Committee has announced that it will release its torture report tomorrow (Tuesday the 9th). Already, the squawking has begun from the usual suspects:

The biggest political story over the next 48 hours is likely to be the Senate Intelligence Committee's report this week on the torture of CIA prisoners during the Bush era. And even before its official release, folks are already preparing for a fight. "A long-awaited Senate report condemning torture by the Central Intelligence Agency has not even been made public yet, but former President George W. Bush's team has decided to link arms with former intelligence officials and challenge its conclusions," the New York Times says. But it's quite possible that the political fallout -- domestically -- could be small. After all, many Americans have already made up their minds on these interrogation practices long ago. But the real immediate impact could be overseas, with the Obama administration bracing for the report to produce violence and unrest directed at U.S. embassies and western personnel in the Middle East.

Source: NBC News

There is much to unpack here, but let's begin with the claim that there will be unrest overseas as a result of the report being published.

I have no doubt that there will be some measure of trouble abroad because of the Committee's report, but that does not impress me enough to argue that the report should be buried. Whatever unrest we face will largely be our own government's fault for choosing these so-called "interrogation techniques" in the first place!

The chickenhawks, seeming to subscribe to the "it's not wrong if the US government does it in the name of national security" school of thought, have already come out of the woodwork to cluck about how the report should not be released. "They're animals!" said several people commenting on the NBC Nightly News' Facebook page in reference to our terrorist enemies.

I have likely said this before but I will say it again: I don't give a damn what it is someone (supposedly) did to merit being waterboarded - if we tortured, we broke international law. And if we broke international law, I want to know about it.

It's not enough to simply say that we're the "good guys" - we have to actually act like it. Treating our enemies like animals and using internationally banned "interrogation techniques" on them are things that terrorists do. Have we truly been so scared by the threat of terrorism that we want to devolve into using some of the tactics from their playbook to succeed in the "war on terror"?

You become what you hate.

There is one final angle to this that I find most interesting. Many of the same people who are so trusting of the government's actions in the name of national security are some of the same people who usually don't trust the 'gubmint' as far as they can smell it.

The government wants to make dietary suggestions to beat the obesity epidemic? That's BIG GUBMINT RUN AMOK! The government wants to act as though it's above the law in the realm of national security matters? What could go wrong?

"The Need To Vent"

I can't help but appreciate the irony. As Rachel Maddow has pointed out on her Maddow Blog, Republicans lately have been pointing to their need to "vent" in the wake of president Obama's executive action concerning immigration:

The Republican-led House may vote this week to undo President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration, House Speaker John Boehner told lawmakers Tuesday as he sought to give outraged conservatives an outlet to vent over Obama’s move without shutting down the government.

            

Boehner, McCarthy and Scalise need to craft a process that will allow conservatives to vent, but prevent a shutdown.

           

The resolution to undo the president’s action, however, would largely be a way for House Republicans to vent their displeasure, and could come as early as Thursday.

House Speaker John A. Boehner, who has pleaded with fellow Republicans to avoid a contentious government shutdown fight, appeared to win support on Tuesday for a plan that would allow members of his party to vent anger at President Obama while keeping the government open beyond next week.

Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/homeland-chief-faces-gop-critics-on-immigration/2014/12/02/a83c0b4c-79fa-11e4-8241-8cc0a3670239_story.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/lame-duck-congress-agenda-113222.html?hp=t1_r

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/us/house-gop-weighs-symbolic-immigration-vote-in-plan-to-avoid-shutdown.html?_r=0

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/12/02/boehner-plan-avert-shutdown-appears-gain-support-congress-races-finish-its-work/kfdQyZVBhZHaL2ordY12GL/story.html

The president hurt conservatives' feeling, so now they need to "vent" in order to make themselves feel better.

One of the big straw men that many conservatives often knock down about liberals is our supposed reliance on feelings and self-esteem. Conservatives, they argue, are made of stronger stuff that isn't offended by ideas that run contrary to theirs.

Yet Republicans in office are apparently such big babies that Obama taking action without them - which, by the way, is completely within his authority - cuts them so much to the quick that they have to take symbolic, empty gestures to make themselves "feel better". Those actions, it should be noted, come at the expense of what is best for the country.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.

Joni Ernst

I weep for the future of this country. I really do.

It doesn't even seem to matter anymore if a candidate has a good grasp - or any grasp at all - on the big issues of the day, but whether they "appear confident" or seem like the type of person with whom average Americans would like to have a beer.

This is certainly the case in the Iowa senate race between Democrat Bruce Braley and Republican Joni Ernst. The two went head-to-head in a debate last evening, and Ernst apparently showed that she knew nothing about the relevant issues of the race. The Des Moines Register writes:

[Ernst’s] low point was “stubbornly pushing the claim that Obamacare cut Medicare benefits, an argument repeatedly debunked by nonpartisan fact checkers, and her confusion on a question about current ‘job-killing’ regulations, where she cited cap-and-trade, which is not law,” [Kedron Bardwell, an associate professor of political science at Simpson College in Indianola] said.

 

[Dennis Goldford, a Drake University political scientist] said Ernst is “an excellent performer.” “She looks right at the camera. She seems to radiate a certain kind of confidence,” he said.

 

But Ernst didn’t often say anything of substance, Goldford said.

Source: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/28/braley-ernst-debate-simpson-college/16396423/

The same article was quick to point out that Ernst "looked directly at the camera" and "seemed to radiate a certain type of confidence". I'm getting flashbacks from the 2008 election, when Sarah Palin didn't know shit from shinola but captivated conservatives because she was folksy and winked at the camera during her debate with Joe Biden.

Do the American people really fall for this style-over-substance malarkey? Apparently so, because as the Register also reported, Ernst's performance was characterized by mischaracterization after mischaracterization of the issues at hand:

She used federal cap and trade rules as an example of factors undermining job creation, though there never has been federal cap and trade legislation.

Asked to explain her support for bills that would have banned forms of birth control and in-vitro fertilization, Ernst simply said that the legislation she supported "didn't pass" (which, of course, beside the point).

Ernst also admitted to not understanding the science of climate change and whether global warming is man-made or not (there's a lot of that going around) and claimed, speciously, that Social Security was set to go bankrupt in twenty-odd years.

She is also beating her Democratic opponent by six points, according to Iowa polling.

I know that members (and prospective members) of Congress can't be experts on every issue when they're trying to run a campaign. Not all of us are economic wonks or climatologists. However, before I elect someone to represent me in Congress, I would want to make damn sure that they first know what the hell they're talking about when they discuss their platform. We don't need more idiots in Congress who wouldn't know how to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel* - we have enough of those already (most of them are in the Republican caucus). What we need are smart policymakers who have a basic grasp on the issues and are willing to tell the American people what they may not want to hear - "folksiness" be damned.

Or to put it another way: who would you rather have as a pilot of your airliner - someone who flunked a basic aeronautics test, or someone who knew their way around the cockpit? Ernst appears to be an example of the former.


*This quote is attributed to Pres. Lyndon Johnson. It is unfortunately not original with me.

Success In the Bluegrass State

For evidence that "Obamacare" is a resounding success, look no further than the state of Kentucky:

'Nuff said.

"Negative Control At Helm"

The UN recognizes 193 nations in the world. Of those, the United States maintains an embassy in 169. According to reporting from Rachel Maddow, however, about a fourth of this country's embassies are operating without an ambassador.

You can thank Republicans in Congress for this, as they have refused to confirm any new ambassadors:

The Senate may not be confirming nominees to posts in a slew of countries before departing for the August recess, but after some procedural maneuvering, the U.S. will be getting a top diplomat in Russia.

 

Senators confirmed the nomination of John F. Tefft by voice vote as the chamber finished evening business after he faced objection to confirmation by unanimous consent earlier in the night.

Source: http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/republicans-block-ambassador-nominations-in-nuclear-option-fallout/?dcz=

Why aren't Republicans interested in appointing ambassadors at a time when world events are as unstable as they currently are? Senator Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyo) explains:

“We used to pass ambassadors and all kinds of people en bloc like that, but we have this nuclear option now that the majority chose so it takes a little longer to do that whole process, and on that basis, I object,” Enzi said.

 (Source is same article)

Got that? Normally, Republicans would be more than happy to actually provide this country with the ambassadors it needs for proper foreign relations. But because their feelings were hurt when Democrats used the "nuclear option" to put an end to constant Republican filibustering, they're instead going to sit on their hands and pout.

This is yet another in a series of examples of Republicans who apparently hate Obama more than they love their country - or are interested in serving their country by providing what the US needs to continue its diplomatic work.

Another Day, Another Failure

Do the Tea Party Republicans in Congress who keep blocking legislation truly love their country?

That's not a question I ask lightly. Because the patriotism of liberals like me is routinely questioned by some of the same people who are the subject of this blog post, I'm loath to question the patriotism of others.

And yet I have long wondered about people - like many Tea Partiers who emblazon their organizations with words like "patriot" and "liberty"  - who bluster about what big patriots they are. It seems to me that the more you talk about how much of a patriot you are, or how humble you are, it often turns out that you're not actually all that patriotic or humble.

With that in mind, we turn to news from yesterday that Republican leadership has again failed to pass a bill. But not just any bill, mind you, but a bill containing Republican-friendly language on an issue - immigration - that has long been a source of Republican bluster about "securing our borders":

Democrats blamed Boehner for chasing after conservative votes for the border bill that were never going to materialize, after he initially proposed a more robust $1.5 billion plan that likely would have drawn some Democratic votes. Instead, as conservatives balked at that price tag, GOP leaders shrank the bill in an effort to grow the Republican vote – while losing Democrats.
“The worse the bill, the more votes on the Republican side,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in the closing minutes of the debate.

The pulling of the bill marked an embarrassing failure in the first real test of the new leadership team that takes office Thursday following Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor’s resignation as majority leader.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/31/at-11th-hour-house-gop-poised-to-pass-border-bill/

All of this to block passing a bill that doesn't actually solve the humanitarian crisis at the border, but simply allows Republicans to go home to their constituents and say "Well, we did what we could". They couldn't even pass a bill that's all show and no substance.

This Congress' inability to pass anything thanks to the intransigence of the Republican base has, in my opinion, gone from being infuriating to scary. If our elected officials cannot even pass basic legislation what will it mean for this country as a whole? I fear a number of nightmare scenarios: Americans dying on a highway bridge somewhere because of Congress' inability - refusal, even - to address this nation's crumbling infrastructure, or this country's financial solvency called into serious question because of another big fight over raising the debt ceiling.

The usual suspects, of course, will be quick to blame the president. I'm sure Republican politicians are banking on the American people blaming Obama for the lack of action on immigration. To paraphrase a character from the Disney movie A Bug's Life: as the leader, everything is your fault.

The interesting aspect of this story, however, is the fact that it serves to illustrate that the problem is coming not from the Executive Branch or from the Democratic coalition in Congress, but from the Republicans. The base seems so poisoned against Obama, so set in its opposition, that it is forcing the leadership to reject bills that Republicans would normally like.

You would think that if immigration was truly an issue that was consequential to this country's health and survival, as Republicans have claimed, they would be quick to find a solution to the current refugee crisis. Yet once again, we see politics, as well as pure spite towards Obama, get in the way of what's best for the country. This is a pattern that has, unfortunately, continued to repeat itself since Obama was elected the first time, from Mitch McConnell suggesting that ensuring Obama was not reelected was more important than helping his country to Republican attempts to thwart attempts to raise the debt ceiling.

This history is what leads me to seriously question the patriotism of the self-professed super patriots currently in Congress, who speak in such glowing terms about our founding fathers and their values, and yet seem interested in destroying what our founding fathers created all in a Moby Dick-like quest to "get" Obama.

My country may not survive that quest, however, and I find that I love my country more than I love asinine electoral politics. Shame on Republicans for not feeling the same way.

"Leading From Behind"

I finally got around to watching Sunday's Meet The Press. Aside from the usual beltway blather about Obama being "weak" on foreign policy, there was one part of David Gregory's 'roundtable' that stuck out at me: claims that the president "looks weak" economically.

In actuality, the numbers speak for themselves, and they make Obama look pretty damn good. For one thing, the job market is as strong as it's been since before the Great Recession

But in recent months, something has changed. On Thursday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that U.S. employers added 288,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate fell to 6.1 percent, its lowest level since September 2008, the month Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy sparked a global financial crisis. The U.S. has added 1.4 million jobs so far this year, making it the best half-year since the recession ended. Payrolls are up by 2.5 million over the past year, also the best mark of the recovery.

Source: Five Thirty Eight

The Wall Street Journal added:

U.S. employers added 288,000 jobs in June, far more than economists had forecast and a sign of strength in the labor market. Job growth in April and May was sharply revised upward as well. The gains mark the fifth consecutive month that nonfarm payrolls grew by more than 200,000, a streak unmatched since the late 1990s.

Source: Wall Street Journal

"Sure, sure," some may retort, "But what about the stock market?". Well, actually, the Dow recently reached a high of 17,000.

Terrance Odean, a finance professor at the University of California at Berkeley, is expecting the Dow reaching 17,000 will spur more buying.

“I expect that the biggest effect of hitting 17,000 is that the event gets news coverage and, in the process, reminds (or informs) investors that the market has been going up,” Odean told MarketWatch in an email. “While this could prompt some people to sell, I’d expect it to trigger more buying than selling.”

 Source: Market Watch

"That said, investors should be feeling good about Dow 17,000," Scott Wren, a senior equity strategist with Wells Fargo Advisors, wrote in a note to investors. "The stock market has more than recovered from levels seen during the financial crisis more than five years ago. Slow and steady can win the race; and it has."
The Dow has climbed more than 10,500 points since its Great Recession low of 6,547.05 on March 9, 2009.

Source: Seattle Times

As for the storied deficit, it has shrunk - not grown - on Obama's watch:

The federal budget outlook will continue to improve this year, with the deficit projected to shrink to $514 billion — the lowest level since President Barack Obama took office.
Rebounding tax receipts and slower spending will help narrow the budget shortfall for the third consecutive year, the Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday. The deficit will continue to fall next year, to $478 billion, before beginning to climb again in 2016, as costs related to aging baby boomers mount.

Source: Politico

(All emphasis mine)

Not bad for a president so many derisively accuse of being a "Socialist". But don't wait for the so-called "liberal press" to report much on these good numbers - they're so worried about appearing "biased" in the eyes of noted centrists like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity that they skew coverage to the right in a ham-handed attempt to "balance" the news.

A lie by omission, of course, is still a lie. As long as this good news doesn't receive proper coverage, however, it gets passed on until it becomes gospel to under-informed voters. So much for the media doing its job...