Republican's still fear-mongering

And a very interesting point that I'm sure these "highly principled" Republicans would never admit:

UPDATE: The crime for which Omar Abdel Rahman was convicted and
for which he's currently serving a life sentence in Colorado is the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, of which
Rahman was the alleged "mastermind." That terrorist attack took place just
seven weeks after Bill Clinton was inaugurated, but after that attack -- to use
the Beltway parlance -- Clinton kept us safe, for the rest of his
presidency. No more foreign Terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
It wasn't until Clinton left the Oval Office and George Bush became
President were Islamic Terrorists able to strike the Homeland
again.

Therefore, using the reasoning of Bush followers everywhere, this means that
Clinton's counter-terrorism policies -- i.e.: trying accused Terrorists in
civilian courts and incarcerating them in U.S. prisons -- have been proven to be
extremely effective in keeping us safe (since, as any beginning student of Logic
will tell you: if A precedes B, then it means that A caused B -- as in: A = "waterboarding, torture and GITMO," and B =
"no Terrorist attack on U.S. soil from 2002-2008"). Using that same
"logic": A = "trying Terrorists in civilian courts and imprisoning
them in the U.S.," and B = "no foreign Terrorist attacks in the U.S.
from February, 1993 through the end of the Clinton presidency."

late-comer to facebook; impacting my blogging

I don't seem to blog anymore. I tend to spend some time on FB instead. not obsessively, but the spare time I do have seems to end up being spent there instead of here. Damn Facebook.

Kennedy withdraws

At first her throwing her hat in the ring didn't bother me beyond the usual dynastic sense of entitlement, but it's not something the Kennedy's invented. Think of names like Adams, Taft, Udall, Bush and Clinton all have used their name to political advantage, some deservedly and some undeservedly (George W. Bush being the 3rd most qualified son of G. H.W. Bush comes to mind). But as I thought about it more, it did piss me off a bit. Clearly, she wasn't the most qualified New Yorker to be a Senator, there are others. And a last name isn't a qualification by itself...so i was glad when she withdrew.

But the cynic in me thought that maybe she was thinking that Uncle Teddy was not long for this world and that the political failout from trying to become the Senator from Mass would be less trying. This article appears to contradict that, but nonetheless I'm glad she's come to her senses.

Articles I had to send to a guy who I considered well-versed in politics.

This Reagan one is a bonus...
Myth of Reaganomics
http://mises.org/story/1544

Torture isn’t cool just b/c WE do it:
All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side ... The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them
George Orwell

It’s probably better surmised here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/08/nuremberg/index.html

and here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/24/torture/



These are about torture and abuse. And “we’re America so we can do it” isn’t a defense. No one every commits war crimes without saying they were just defending the homeland.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/terror/main680658.shtml

http://www.newser.com/story/45080/senate-report-pins-torture-on-rumsfeld.html

Waterboarding:, a war crime we executed Japanese for:
http://www.newser.com/story/39975/secret-white-house-memos-okd-waterboarding.html

http://www.newser.com/story/28074/ex-detainee-describes-gitmo-tortures.html

Extraordinary rendition:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6

Panetta is bad choice for CIA

I understand Obama's point, the need to clean out the partisans in the agency, but those appointees should be gone anyway. The professionals should remain and even a professional Intellegence person can make that happen and is probably better suited to do so. Just my thoughts.