Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had some words for John McCain about his ongoing sour grapes. And he put them in a letter addressed to the Maverick, and CC'ed Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte because they are now being insufferable assholes on this Benghazi thing.
"I refuse to allow the Senate to be used as a venue for baseless partisan attacks...
...You already have the opportunity to engage more fully in the fulsome and ongoing investigation in the events in Benghazi... [but] failed to attend a classified briefing held by the Senate Homeland Security Committee on this very issue."
In other words, you're making a fool of yourself. Knock it off, you idiot.
If there's any question left at all where the Republicans stand on campaign finance reform or transparency, think no more.
Last night, Senate Republicans led by Minority Leader and resident Galapagos tortoise Mitch McConnell, voted against bringing a bill to the floor requiring disclosure of anyone who donates to independent groups that spent more than $10,000 on campaign ads.
Once the supposed leaders in campaign finance disclosure (remember John McCain?), not one, single Republican voted in favor of the ‘Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012’ or 'DISCLOSE' Act. Not even John McCain.
And what is wrong with wrong with disclosing who is behind the the financing of specific independent ads on either side of the political spectrum? According to a McConnell op-ed, he considers it "un-American." He believes it "punishes political enemies." How so if the bill is equally enforced towards ads supporting both parties? McConnell also says it's a First Amendment infringement on free speech. Well, if what you are financing is something you believe in, something you stand for, why would you be ashamed of attaching your name to it?
The truth of the matter is it has nothing to do with protecting free speech or punishing political enemies. Republicans are blocking a vote on this bill because the majority of anonymous money is funding anti-Obama ads. And for the last three years, the GOP has made it clear that their number one priority above all else is to make President Obama a one term president. If the roles were reversed and it were Romney who was in the crosshairs of most of the superPACS, I would posit that there would have been no such filibuster.
The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court overturned McCain-Feingold except for the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending. But how are we to know where the money is actually coming from to fund the superPACS when the donations are anonymous? This loophole could possibly allow foreign entities to play a role in our albeit fractured political campaign finance system. Whether or not this is the most important reason for disclosure is a conversation for another day (I think it should be a major reason), but I digress.
The fact remains that Republicans would rather have millions upon hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into the political process without any care as to where it came from. It's dangerous. It should stop. And maybe one day it will when it's the Republicans who are on the short end of the stick.
What you are about to see is a video of Congressional Rep. Jean Schmidt, Republican from Ohio, when she (as Fox News and CNN did) initially thought that the individual mandate on the Affordable Care Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. Hold on to your seats.
This is an elected representative acting like a spoiled child with Tourette Syndrome in public based on what she thought was a decision in favor of her ideology. I wish (and I hope someone has video out there) that we could have seen her reaction when she found out she was wrong. Did she run down the street tearing her hair out? Did she repeatedly slam her head against a wall? Did she self-immolate?
And she wasn't the only one. It seems that other Republican and conservative politicians, talking heads, pundits, bloggers and tweeters were apoplectic and hyperbole doesn't even begin to describe their reaction.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has vowed to "repeal Obamacare on Day One" of his presidency, as has Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Radio host Michael Savage blamed Chief Justice Roberts' decision on his epilepsy medication.
Rush Limbaugh claimed "a giant, total fraud was perpetrated on this country." I don't remember such a reaction to Citizens United.
Indiana Congressman Mike Pence compared the expansion of health care coverage to millions of Americans to the biggest terrorist attack on American soil. Yes, 9/11. Seriously.
Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro likened the ruling to the Dred Scott decision. You know, the 1850s ruling that stated people of African descent were property whether or not they were slaves. And he ended his tweet (yes, he tweeted that) with "This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration." Nope. No exaggeration there!
And you have your usual, standard fare racist tweets; a self avowed Christian asking why they should pay for some "dumb nigger['s]" insurance, and one gem blaming "that nigger Coonance Thomas" for the Supreme Court's decision, even though Thomas was one of four who dissented. Classy.
This is what we find not only from fringe wingnuts, but actual mainstream and in some cases duly elected wingnuts. Is mental health covered under Obamacare?
Remember when the GOP and Republican talking heads went apeshit when the Obama administration decided to try Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, AKA "The Underwear Bomber" in federal civilian court? Remember when Senate Minority Leader Mitch "The Jowel" McConnell said President Obama was acting “as if [Abdulmutallab] had robbed a convenience store”?
There was a time when the circumstances surrounding Abdulmutallab’s arrest were part of a lengthy national debate about the best way to handle terrorism cases. There were letters, television appearances and press releases calling on the Obama administration to reverse its position and send Abdulmutallab into the military tribunal system due to perceived weaknesses in the civilian court system.
Now that he’s locked up for life, it’s pretty much radio silence. A search for press releases mentioning Abdulmutallab from members of Congress this week turns up just one, from Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), who said the sentence ‘demonstrations that our federal court system is fully capable of bringing terrorist to justice.”
Yeah, they trusted our judicial system so much, they insisted he be sent to a military tribunal. Why do Republicans hate America and its justice system?
*Note: I know Joe Lieberman also insisted on a military tribunal for Abdulmutallab too, but really, let's not delude ourselves for a second that he was ever really a Democrat or even an Independent.
Is this how it's going to end for the Republican Party?
TPM: Not satisfied with President Obama’s new religious accommodation, Republicans will move forward with legislation by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that permits any employer to deny birth control coverage in their health insurance plans, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Sunday.
Currently, 28 states mandate that employers' health insurance cover contraception for its employees, eight of which require it regardless of whether they are religiously affiliated or not. Many Catholic universities and hospitals already provide the coverage. The Obama administration's religious exemption is far broader than current law and actually a loosening of restrictions. But for some reason, GOP leaders think they have a dog in this fight and are betting that this will be wedge issue to sway Catholic votes away from the President in the upcoming 2012 election. This despite the fact that 58% of Catholics believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception, and that 62% of women overall, a huge voting block to be sure, agree as well.
So not only are they tying one end of the Blunt Amendment rope around the Catholic opposition rock, but they're tying the other end around their necks with a flawed "religious freedom" argument and attempting to roll back existing law for employers whose businesses have nothing to do with religion, and tossing it off the wingnut bridge.
“The fact that the White House thinks this is about contraception is the whole problem. This is about freedom of religion, it’s right there in the First Amendment. You can’t miss it — right there in the very first amendment to our Constitution,” [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell said. “What the overall view on the issue of contraception is has nothing to do with an issue about religious freedom.”
McConnell went on to embellish the argument, claiming Obama is being “rigid in his view that he gets to decide what somebody else’s religion is.” He said that “this issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down.”
How can a career politician of McConnell's stature get the First Amendment so wrong? It's because he is ginning up another empty attack on President Obama. He just can't help himself. Let's review:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No law "respecting the establishment of religion..." - meaning that the government will not make any one religion the official religion of the country. "...or prohibiting free exercise thereof." - meaning that you are free to practice any religion you choose without fear of reproach from the government.
So, no, Senator McConnell, it's not "right there" in the First Amendment. Just because you are free to practice religion as you choose and follow its supposed moral values, does not mean you can arbitrarily ignore the laws of the land thereby causing an infringement on another person's rights. It's a far, far stretch to say that requiring an employer to cover contraception in its health care benefits for their employees, even if that employer is the Catholic Church now playing a role in the secular world, is a violation of conscience. It is up to the individual in question to face their moral conscience when it comes to the usage of contraception made available at no cost via their health insurance plans. Catholics who work outside the realm of the Church as their employer have that health care right. They also have the right not to use it - because of their religious beliefs.
In fact, I believe that in this particular case, it is the Catholic Church that is in violation of the very thing it protests. If the employee in question is not of the Catholic faith, why should he or she be discriminated against and not have the same health care benefits they would have if they didn't work for a religious organization? Is that not an infringement of their rights? If the government favored the religious institution's view, would that not be a violation of the First Amendment, namely "respecting the establishment" of their religion in lieu of federal law? If this were the case, could a Catholic secretary working for an Orthodox Jewish lawyer bring a ham and cheese sandwich to the office for her lunch in clear violation of her employer's Jewish beliefs?
I happen to be indifferent on the exemption to churches that President Obama offered. But when the church clearly steps in to the province of secular business, whether it be a hospital or a school in which people of all faiths are accepted, then they should and must follow the rules and regulations of the secular world. You can't claim religious exemption when it suits you. In this contraception coverage "nontroversy," the majority of Catholics are right, it's the Catholic Church and the "anything anti-Obama" GOP that are wrong.
ADDING... Rachel Maddow had a great piece on this issue last Thursday night. Along with exposing the Republican candidates fighting it out for the Presidential nomination, she also took a swipe and the 60-something, white male Beltway pundits who seem to think that it's the President who is looking bad on this issue even though he's with the majority of Americans. I think she may have been referring to Chris Matthews.
So once again, Weeper of the House John Boehner shows his toothless bite when it comes to bringing his side of the aisle in line for a vote not to raise taxes. Yes, you read that correctly, NOT TO RAISE TAXES.
The Senate came together to pass a two month extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance by a bipartisan vote of 89-10, and while that may not be an ideal situation, it staves off an automatic increase on taxes for 160 million Americans when the current payroll tax cut expires, hardly something to sneeze at in the current economic state of affairs. But that wasn't good enough for Tea Party Republicans who rejected the bill.
“When we met last week, Speaker Boehner requested that Senator McConnell and I work out a compromise,” [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid said, referring to the minority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “Neither side got everything they wanted, but we forged a middle ground that passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.”
Well, that was last week, Senator Reid. This week Boehner's got new marching orders from the extreme right.
This may be easy for me to say, but if having taxes raised (yes, Republicans are sitting idly by and breaking the Norquist code of raising taxes at any cost) is what needs to happen to make the general public aware of how intransigent the current Republican Party has become, and the result is a mass termination of House GOP jobs via the 2012 election, then it's a small price to pay for progress.
The House is currently in session to have another vote by 6:30pm which Boehner expects to fail. The system isn't broken. The Republican Party is broken.
Look, I know that if you're a Republican, to agree with anything that President Obama has to offer is a political risk. I know that everyone in the GOP has pretty much taken the Mitch McConnell tact of making President Obama a one-term president as its main and major goal, even at the risk of US economic collapse. I know that the Republican Party likes to tout itself as the party of national security. But these latest comments from Republican Senator John McCain and his personal Renfield, Senator Lindsey Graham are absolutely laughable.
"Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi," their statement reads, "but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."
This statement comes from the same two Senators that were part of a delegation that considered selling nonlethal defense equipment to Gaddafi's Libya (with a little McCain bow to boot in his meeting with Gaddafi).
McCain wanted the US's "full weight" of the military airpower, and yet his own members of Congress were losing their shit just a few weeks ago, stomping their feet with a House vote to admonish the President for continuing America's role in the NATO operation and claiming a violation of the War Powers Act, and threatened to cut off funding for the operation. Does that mean that McCain and Graham would have been fine with a unilateral US strike against Libya with the "full weight" of our airpower had it only taken 89 days?
The bottom line is that the Republican Party has lost their "strong on defense" moniker and they don't like it.
The Obama administration was successful in taking out the Somali pirates that captured Captain Richard Phillips and held him hostage, but immediately afterward came the email smear campaign that the President was hesitant in authorizing lethal force.
President Obama made capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden a top priority as soon as he was sworn into office and said so during the campaign. This was something George W. "Wanted Dead Or Alive" Bush couldn't bother with just six months after 9/11. Yet again, right wingers went to the Internet and created another smear email to claim something about which they knew nothing.
And now, with a war in Afghanistan and in the process of a methodical withdrawal from Iraq, and the President deciding to honor the US's obligation to NATO and the UN in the Libya conflict, and here are the Republicans making sure to criticize the widest range possible just to confirm they cover everything, from acting without Congressional authority, or berating Obama for letting France and England take the lead in the action, to now McCain and Graham whining about not acting quickly enough and that it took six months to ouster a dictator who held power for 42 years. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page is praising the efforts while criticizing the the naysaying GOP.
The fighting continues in Tripoli, and Moammar Gadhafi still hasn't been captured, but the triumph of the U.S.-backed Libyan rebels seems to be only a matter of time. Though you wouldn't know it from the reaction at the Council on Foreign Relations or among some GOP Presidential candidates, this is a victory for freedom and U.S. national interests.
A dictator with American blood on his hands is about to be overthrown by a popular revolt invoking democratic principles. Not a single American has died in the effort, and the victory would not have been possible without U.S. air power, intelligence and targeting as part of NATO. A long-oppressed people now has a chance to chart a freer future, a fact that is clear from the rejoicing in Benghazi.
What would we prefer: That Gadhafi stay in power?
...Yet some of the same people who said we shouldn't help the rebels now want the U.N. to send "boots on the ground," including U.S. troops. It's not clear that the Libyans want or even need such help, especially from Americans, which could complicate their own nascent attempts at self-government.
...President Obama was right yesterday to urge the rebels to pursue "reconciliation." But America's foreign policy elites have also so far misjudged the rebels, who have shown impressive persistence and coordination in maintaining a six-month military campaign.
...One disappointment is the reluctance among Republicans to praise the rebel success, perhaps for fear it will somehow help Mr. Obama.
...U.S. intervention has succeeded in preventing a bloodbath in Benghazi and soon in deposing a long-time U.S. enemy who could have re-emerged as a terrorist sponsor.
Michele Bachmann, who played the al Qaeda tune, now looks partisan to a fault.
...The U.S. military is stretched at the current moment and we can't take sides in every civil war. But the Libyan intervention shows that when the cause is just and the means are available, the U.S. can make a moral and strategic difference.
U.S. support for the rebels won't be lost on a Middle East still undergoing its own upheavals, not least on the people and governments of Syria and Iran. NATO showed it will finish a military task it started, and soon Gadhafi will take his place with Saddam in the ranks of Arab despots who will terrorize their people no more.
I believe everyone has forgotten (including Michael Steele and the Morning Joe pundits this morning) that the initial intervention is Libya was a humanitarian one, with NATO acting on the information that Gaddafi was about to unleash hell on his own people in Benghazi.
And yet, President Obama can do no right. He doesn't even read the right books on vacation. I suppose he would have gotten a reprieve on the reading list criticism if he'd included Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED and Rick Perry's FED UP!, both also works of fiction, by the way.
You gotta hand it to the so-called leaders of the Republican Party. If they don't get everything they want, they sure know how to take their ball and go home.
TPM:Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has proposed creating an escape hatch for Congressional Republicans, who have put themselves in a box by threatening not to raise the national debt limit if Democrats don't agree to trillions of dollars in cuts to popular social programs.
Yes, after all the yelling and screaming that the debt ceiling sky is falling, and digging in their heels saying they wouldn't approve a raise in the debt ceiling unless substantial spending cuts were taken to offset the raise considering one cent in revenue increases unacceptable, all at the expense of US defaulting on its loans and a possible domino effect short circuiting the global economy - tantamount to blackmail, something they do so well - little Mitch McConnell is taking his ball and going home, dragging little Johnny Boehner by the hand with him.
JM Ashby over at Bob Cesca's blog does a great job summing up McConnell's toothless legislation proposal:
If the legislation proposed by McConnell is passed, President Obama can raise the national debt limit without a single cut to spending. Congress will then have the opportunity to pass a series of symbolic resolutions condemning the president for doing so. And in a worst case scenario, President Obama would have to propose entirely hypothetical and imaginary spending cuts he would make if it were up to him.
Considering how crafty and elusive the administration can be when it wants to, the threat of requiring phantom spending-cut proposals and the passage of ineffectual congressional resolutions condemning the debt ceiling seems completely impotent. What will stop the administration from including tax-hikes and long-term cuts to defense spending in every proposal? It’s all hypothetical!
So let's review. House Speaker John Boehner and the GOP were adamant about not raising the debt ceiling at the risk of US default unless it included spending cuts equaling or exceeding the amount of the debt ceiling raise, particularly cuts in the form of popular social programs like Medicare and Social Security. The Republican Party was looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of a $2 trillion worth of spending cuts without any increase in revenue - even on the backs of the poor millionaires and billionaires' tax loopholes. President Obama called their bluff and said 'if you're actually serious about debt reduction, let's look at a $4 trillion cut. Let's look at Social Security and Medicare. But it's not going to come at the expense of the middle and working classes. Let's look at tax reform, loopholes, and having the top 2% actually pay what you think they're paying.'Eric Cantor walked away from the table. Boehner blinked and walked away from the table. Mitch McConnell is now walking away from the table for political cover. And President Obama knows it.
President Obama did not walk away from the table or the American people when it came to defaulting on the US debts. It was the perfect move. And now with McConnell's proposal, President Obama, the only adult in the room, is getting what he wanted in the first place, a no strings attached debt ceiling increase.
ADDING... I have unsubscribed from several "progressive" organizations after receiving emails trashing President Obama for selling out the middle and working classes by putting "Social Security and Medicare cuts" on the table, something he NEVER said he'd do, and asking for donations in the process.
From the beginning of these negotiations, the "professional left" freak out has pissed me off to no end. Instead of attacking the party threatening to default on country's debt and using it as a hostage tool, their default position was to attack the President for trying to get a deal for ALL Americans. There is no longer any reason to consider these organizations the "base." Anyone thinking or suggesting that a primary challenge to President Obama is a good idea should in no way be considered, "the base." The base should be considered the base because they are the core support for the party leader. If you don't support the President more than 50% of the time (and that's being generous) you're not the base. If you don't support President Obama but still consider yourself the base, do yourself a favor and don't come back here. You won't like what you read. Or come back and make your points in the comments section. The real "base" welcomes the debate.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Fulton Fish Market) and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-The Land of Tears) voted to increase the debt limit five previous times.
Remind me again who was president during those years?
According to a new CBS News poll... 53 percent of Americans want the Bush-era tax cuts extended only for households earning less than $250,000 per year. That roughly matches the proposal put forth by the White House, which wants to extend the cuts only for incomes less than $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals... Another 14 percent of Americans say the cuts should expire for all Americans.
That's a total of 67% who'd rather have the tax cuts expire for the top 2% of income earners. What do you say, Boehner? How about you, Mitch "Mr. Limpet" McConnell? Are you going to listen to the American people as you've repeated ad nauseam and extend the Bush tax cuts only for those under the $250,000 threshold?
McConnell: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
Absolutely. No. Shame.
And there you have it. Complete admission that if the GOP regains control of both the House and the Senate, they will continue their plan to stop legislation dead in its tracks so they can say during the 2012 campaign that nothing got done under a Democratic President. And to add to it, they'll most likely start investigations into every aspect of the Obama administration for no particular reason other than avoid doing actual work.
The suspense is killing me. Apparently the Republican Party has known what they are against (everything) but are still formulating what they are for. After a year and a half of being asked what they are for, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says we only need to wait one more month to find out what that is. Woo hoo! One more month and THEN we will FINALLY know what the Republicans plan on doing with the control they ass-ume they will gain in November. Phew. And I thought they had no clue what a plan even was or what they actually stood for. So, come on September. Bring it on! Yeah!
But wait, remember last year when they teased us with their "we have a budget that isn't really a budget" scheme? The press was all a flutter with the countdown to the Republican budget. And then it was released! And it didn't have any numbers.
So I am feeling a little, what's the word, oh yeah, giggly over the new wait. I figure they'll either look silly or stupid. Oh, why does August have to have that extra day!?
Take the country back from whom? Take the country back to where? Seems as though the Republican Party was all set to declare yesterday's primary and special elections as a referendum to "take the country back" from whoever they think took it, nevermind the fact that those who presumably absconded with "their" country actually won elections. But it looks as though special elections are only critical if Republicans actually win them.
If this is the face of those that would take the country back, then bring it on. Let's look at some of yesterday's election results, shall we?
In the only Democratic vs. Republican race, the special general election to fill the seat of the late Jack Murtha in Pennsylvania's 12th district, former Democratic Murtha aide Mark Critz beat the GOP backed Tim Burns.
The more progressive Congressman Joe Sestak beat out 29 year Republican and one year Democrat Arlen Specter for the Democratic nomination despite the White House backing the party switching Specter (presumably because of some back room deal). Smells like Rahm Emanuel's been all over that.
Senate Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln couldn't score enough of an edge over her liberal challenger, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter and the two will have a runoff election on June 8th. The White House also backed Lincoln, but truth be told, either candidate may have a rough go if it in November, so maybe they were thinking better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
And then there's Tea Party candidate Rand Paul who crushed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's pick, Trey Grayson for the Kentucky GOP Senate Primary. This despite Paul's stance on certain issues. Do they agree with Paul's stance on the unconstitutionality of the Patriot Act? How many Tea Party followers over 65 would support his abolishing Social Security? Or Medicare? How many of those in wheelchairs would agree with him doing away with the Americans With Disabilities Act? If they blindly pull the lever for anyone calling themselves a Tea Party "patriot" without knowing how the issues may affect them, they're going to have a few surprises in store.
In any case, it seems that yes, incumbents seem to be in trouble, but let's not forget that there are plenty of Republican incumbents as well, and they're probably in more danger from Tea Party challengers than are Democrats. I don't believe many discouraged Democratic voters are planning on voting for GOP or Tea Party candidates any time soon just for spite. That would be pretty stupid. But then again, I've been surprised before.
ADDING... Some would argue that last night's results shows that the progressive cause is alive and well, despite the media focus on all things Teabagger. And I would have to agree.
It is amazing to me that the supposed leaders in the Republican party have absolutely no sense of cohesiveness in the reasons for their opposition besides a kneejerk "No" when in opposing... well, everything, not only among themselves but sometimes even within the same person.
Take Senator Mike Enzi. For months, all we've heard about the health care reform bill was how long it was. Boy, how are we ever going to get through all this paperwork?! It's soooo long. Look at all these pages? They spent more time bitching about the length of the bill than they did actually reading it. But not Sen. Enzi. He pulled a little GOP jujitsu.
And we talk about 2,074 pages, which seem like a lot, and it would be for a normal bill that you could debate in a limited period of time, which is what we’re being asked to do. But 2,074 pages isn’t nearly enough to cover health care for America. So why is it only 2,074 pages?
Not long enough?! I suppose they ran out of pages to count.
But in a stunning turnaround that would give anyone whiplash, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was able to encompass the entire GOP platform on Medicare within 24 hours. They've been trying to destroy it for years, and are now feigning protection of the senior's plan when health care reform includes streamlining the Medicare system of ridding it of fraud and abuse to the tine of $500 billion. But what does the Incredible Mr. Limpet say when the opposition wants to expand it?
...Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.) sent out a press release on Sunday, titled: "Cutting Medicare is not what Americans want." That was followed by a new press release on Monday. Its title: "Expanding Medicare 'a plan for financial ruin.'
You'd think that he has a point, if it weren't for the fact that those between the ages of 55 and 64 would buy-in to Medicare and pay the full premiums, thus adding funds into the system, not subtracting from it. Oh, Mitch... what will you be for/against tomorrow?
What a bunch of quivering, diaper soiling pussies these GOP and wingnut mouthpieces be. Today, the Department of Justice announced that 9/11 alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would stand trial in New York City for the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center along with four other suspected terrorists currently being detained in Guantanamo Bay.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said he would seek the death penalty against the five defendants if they are found guilty in federal court.
He announced those decisions in a news conference Friday at the Department of Justice. The arrangements would mean that civilian prosecutors would handle those detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, northern Virginia and Pennsylvania, while the 2000 attack against the Cole would remain within the military system.
Holder went on to add that despite the possibility of certain evidence being thrown out of court due to the way it was obtained (damn, that waterboarding!) there was no way he would let these trials go to Federal court had he not been "confident that the outcome would be a successful one."
But the puzzling thing that I want to know is, why do these bed wetting Republicans opposed to this move have such little faith in the United States Justice system? Why do they insist on, at the the very least, a continuation of their fear mongering?
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey: "It shows a willingness to disclose how our intelligence process works and offer [the suspects] a platform in our legal system to gather intelligence for themselves," Mukasey said before an audience of conservative lawyers at the national Federalist Society's annual legal convention in Washington.
Holder's plan "creates a cornucopia of intelligence for those still at large and a circus for those being tried," Mukasey said."
House Minority Leader John Boehner: "The Obama Administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people. The possibility that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators could be found ‘not guilty’ due to some legal technicality just blocks from Ground Zero should give every American pause."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: “Nobody in America wants these people tried in their local community,” McConnell said, adding that getting a conviction in a civilian court will be “much tougher” and that once the U.S. Justice Department “hands these people over to the court system, they have no more control.
“If they are acquitted, a judge could simply let them go,” McConnell said. “There is no rational basis for bringing these foreigners into the U.S. court system.”
Joe Lieberman: "The terrorists who planned, participated in, and aided the September 11, 2001 attacks are war criminals, not common criminals. Not only are these individuals not common criminals but war criminals, they are also not American citizens entitled to all the constitutional rights American citizens have in our federal courts. The individuals accused of committing these heinous, cowardly acts of intentionally targeting unsuspecting, defenseless civilians should therefore be tried by military commission rather than in civilian courts in the United States...
...It is inconceivable that we would bring these alleged terrorists back to New York for trial, to the scene of the carnage they created eight years ago, and give them a platform to mock the suffering of their victims and the victims' families, and rally their followers to continue waging jihad against America."
These are our intrepid leaders, pissing in their pants at the thought of a fair trial. Moaning about how our Justice system shouldn't be used for "non-citizens" while (as the Rude Pundit notes), "the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution says, 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial' and then talks about the rights that entails. That really doesn't distinguish between citizen and non-citizen and, indeed, there have been many decisions that allow for fair and speedy trial for immigrants both legal and illegal, as well as for non-Americans extradited to the United States for trial."
Speedy and public trial. Does speedy mean being held for six years without charges?
What are these chickenhawks frightened of? Do they seriously believe that our supermax prisons, which hold our most dangerous criminals, can't contain a terrorist? Do they have such little faith in our national security apparatus that even the idea of Gitmo detainees setting a physical foot on precious US soil would undermine our safety? Is McConnell really that dense to think that if by some infinitesimally slim chance KSM is somehow acquitted, he'd be able to walk out the front doors of the courthouse and disappear into the New York City streets? Of course not. It's all fear mongering and political posturing for his brainless base. Why would former AG Mukasey think that having Mohammed inside a federal courtroom "discloses our intelligence process" to terrorists? How is it possible that a former prosecutor like Rudy Giuliani now thinks that the federal courts he worked in as a district attorney now can't handle terrorist cases? Has he forgotten the name "Zacarias Moussaoui" so quickly?
All which leads to the question: why do these elected officials hate the Constitution (save Boehner who doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence)? These war mongering, pants soiling chickenhawks should have a little more faith in the system they claim to defend than throwing out the Constitution whenever it suits them.
Eric "The Squirrel" Cantor appeared on Meet The Press today to poo-poo Poresident Obama's budget while bringing up the fictional train from Disneyland to Las Vegas again, but he did say that the GOP was going to offer an alternative budget proposal.
MR. GREGORY: Are you going to vote for the president's budget?
REP. CANTOR: Listen, the budget process, as you know, David, is one that has just begun on Capitol Hill. There is a lot of, I think, reticence to embrace his budget on both sides of the aisle. This budget, frankly, doesn't have the focus that we need right now in this economy. The focus should be, job one, fixing this banking system and trying to get jobs created again.
MR. GREGORY: Right. But the, but the budget says there's $750 billion to help capitalize the banks. You, you have not offered a figure on what you think is necessary to do that, other than saying you got to do something to get private capital in.
REP. CANTOR: David, David, the Republicans will have a plan.
George Stephanopoulos repeatedly pressed McConnell for a comprehensive Republican alternative budget. Each time, McConnell simply attacked Obama’s plan. He said that he and his colleagues would be offering amendments to “reframe” what the Democrats have proposed, but don’t plan on offering a comprehensive plan:
McCONNELL: [W]e are going to offer a number of amendments to the Democratic proposal. […]
STEPHANOPOULOS: But shouldn’t you have a comprehensive approach that lays out the trade-offs? If you just have rifle-shot amendments, you don’t have to make all the trade-offs that you have to make in an overall budget.
McCONNELL: Well, we’re just sort of getting down in the weeds here about procedure. Through the amendment process, we would absolutely reformulate the Democratic plan. Whether you have a comprehensive approach or whether you offer an amendment is something a parliamentarian can debate.
So what's the plan? Come up with an alternative, comprehensive plan to show you really want to play ball, or weaken the Democratic plan with crap ass amendments? Enjoy the wilderness, boys.
There's something to be said for John McCain railing against earmarks. And he has every right to complain about wasteful spending tacked on to a budget that would bring monies home to certain districts. After all, McCain had not attached a single earmark to the bill, whether as a solo project or in conjunction with other Senators.
Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D)“...At a time when so many American families are tightening their belts to make ends meet, Congress should be as equally committed to living within its means."
Senator Bayh had $1,118,000 worth of earmarks in the bill.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): "The bill costs far too much for a government that should be watching every dime."
Senator McConnell had $51,186,000 worth of earmarks in the bill.
Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R): "Each and every time, whether a Republican or Democratic initiative, I have refused to go along with big government spending or big government solutions."
Senator Inhofe had $53,133,500 worth of earmarks in the bill.
Of the 35 Senators that voted against the bill, 28 of them had solo earmarks included in the bill. Of those 28 Senators, 27 were so-called "fiscally conservative" Republicans and only one was a Democrat.
Total: $234 million. This is only for solo earmarks. This doesn't include co-sponsored earmarks that account for about $7.7 billion in spending.
But here's the thing: earmarks aren't necessarily a bad thing. You need that bridge repaired in your district? Want to add speed bumps by the grade school? Does the park that has fallen into disrepair need an overhaul to detract undesirables from loitering and provide a much needed playground in the area? All those are worthwhile items and earmarks can provide federal funding for certain needs that can't be afforded by local government revenues.
So why flip out over the earmarks and call them pork and wasteful spending? Well, how else to pose as a fiscal conservative and have soundbites ready for your next campaign commercial? How else are you suppose to show your Republican outrage at the way Washington works, wag your finger at President Obama and accuse him of not keeping campaign promises?
Speaking of campaign promises, let's get back to Senator McCain. Unless you live in a cave, you've probably seen the 15 second loop of McCain on the Senate floor waving his freak arms and shouting, "So much for the promise of change, Mr. President. So much for the promise of change" and all too stiffly, as if reading stage direction, slamming the bill with his hand. Well, like I said, McCain can argue against earmarks because he hasn't signed on for any, even though he can let other politicians in his state do the dirty work to the tune of $54.6 million in earmarks for Arizona.
But let's not confuse who made what promise. It was Senator McCain, while running for President who said he'd "make famous" the procurers of earmarks while waving his magic Sharpie™.
That was your promise, Senator McCain, not President Obama's. Besides the fact that your outrage at the earmarks this year account for less than 2% of the total bill. Are you saying that we can balance the budget with a 2% cut? I think I'll leave the economics to the professionals instead of listening to Mr. The Fundamentals Of The Economy Are Still Strong.
President Obama promised transparent earmark reform and to scale back earmark spending to pre-1994 levels, when the Republican Party took over control of Congress. That year, Congress spent $7.8 billion on earmarks. The new $410 billion Omnibus bill? $7.7 billion in earmarks. Mission accomplished, if you will. Next year we plan to see the remainder of his promise to make all earmarks transparent and accessible.
...are now sitting in a jar on Rush Limbaugh's mantle along with the rest of the Republican political so-called leaders on Capitol Hill.
It started early on with Phil Gingrey in his once in a lifetime moment of lucidity when questioning the rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh, until folding like a house of cards and apologizing to The Portly One the very next day after receiving tons of phone calls from the Dittoheads. For every time one of the Republican politicians deny that Limbaugh doesn't speak for them, denounce his "hope that Obama fails," or that they don't go by what Limbaugh says, they then grovel and apologize the next day.
Now the new off-the-hook, hip-hop, leader of the RNC, Michael Steele is the latest to fall under Limbaugh's corpulent thumb.
During Steele's appearance on D.L. Hughley's CNN show on Saturday, he took umbrage at his host's observation that Limbaugh is the de facto leader of the Republican party.
"I am the de facto leader of the Republican party... Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it's ugly.”
Wow! Michael Steele was one step away from poppin' a cap in Limbaugh's fat ass. But then the inevitable happened.
"My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.
...I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.
I’m not going to engage these guys and sit back and provide them the popcorn for a fight between me and Rush Limbaugh,” Steele added. “No such thing is going to happen. … I wasn’t trying to slam him or anything."
That brown you see on Michael Steele's face is no longer his skin color, it's the skidmark left after inserting his head into Limbaugh's cornhole. Add another jar to Limbaugh's mantle to house Michael Steele's testicles next to Phil Gingrey's, Mike Pence's, Eric Cantor's, Mitch McConnell's and on and on.
Here's Democratic Committee Chairman Tim Kaine's shorter response: I was impressed with Steele for about a minute, until he licked Limbaugh's stiletto heels. All hail Rush Limbaugh! Leader of what used to be the Republican Party!
Mitch McConnell is such a fucking pussy. They've just come out of a meeting with Obama after discussing the economic stimulus package that PE Obama is proposing, and this fuck-o just said (paraphrasing),"As far as the spending portion of the economic stimulus package brought forward by President-elect Obama, we need to make sure it's not for mob museums and water slides." Can't these fucking assholes think for themselves just one time instead of looking at their right wing talking point crib notes?! Jesus Fucking Christ!
And now Whiskey Boy Boehner is slurring something about "Democratcolleagues." It's DEMOCRATIC, FUCKWAD. I'm all for trying to work in a bipartisan fashion, but if these motherfuckers don't start showing mutual respect to the other party, I'm gonna take a bat to someone's head.
Ugh, now cross-eyed Ron Christie is going to say something stupid. I can't even watch. Here it comes... earmarks. I'm waiting for him to say mob museums and water slides.
ShareThis