August 28, 2009
— DrewM As I say to my liberal friends, "I told you if we elected Obama we'd be getting a hard left ideologue. And I was right!".
One idea the administration is considering...not recognizing the results of the upcoming elections if their ideological comrade Zelaya isn't returned to power.
Obama is also about to cut off all aid to Honduras.
U.S. State Department staff have recommended that the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya be declared a "military coup," a U.S. official said on Thursday, a step that could cut off tens of millions of dollars in U.S. funding to the impoverished Central American nation.
The official, who spoke on condition he not be named, said State Department staff had made such a recommendation to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was expected to make a decision on the matter soon.
Contrast this with his "See no evil, speak no evil" policy on the sham Iranian elections.
It's despicable that our government is behaving this way and that it's getting so little attention.
You should check out Dave in Texas' post on Honduras from the other night if you haven't seen it already. It's filled with snarky goodness.
— Ace A former Crist campaign manager who lost his first and only run in elective politics, Crist was taking no chances. Not only is he someone he feels he can trust, he's someone he feels he can easily beat if it turns out his trust is misplaced.
This is sorta standard political positioning, but it doesn't sit well with me. It doesn't help that Crist is not only a squish, but pretty proud of that, and trying to create a brand of "Charlie Crist Republicans," which I guess are like Meghan McCain Republicans minus the tattoos, biker rallies, and Oasis mix tapes.
— Ace I know I've been missing these emails. I will be looking for them now.
If you have been "banned," it's almost certainly an accident. The software bans people almost randomly.
If you have been banned by the software, you should have gotten a message like this:
"Your IP address (68.XXX.XXX.XXX) has been banned. If you feel this is in error, please contact the blog owner by email."
Please let me know what that IP address is, and put "BANNED" in the subject line so I can easily search and find it.
If you're not getting that message, but still can't comment, the problem is likely on your end, that your computer is treating my site as unsafe or something or you're blocked at work or that sort of thing.
I'm sorry so many of you have gotten banned inadvertantly, and that it takes me so long to undo the problem. Please let me know and I'll get it taken care of.
Oh, my email is aceofspadeshq.
Which, in order to keep bots from picking up the address from the web, I am leaving unfinished until I put some more space between the beginning and the end of the email.
My address is @gmail.com
— Ace Well, then! Yesterday I thought maybe we were being mean spirited "haters." It turns out we were providing the ghost of Ted Kennedy with his favorite topic of lighthearted mirth!
The right-wing noise machine strikes again, peddling a myth posted here by DrewM, noted by The Corner, originally noted by Jules Crittendon, and, um... actually reported by (presumably arch-liberal) former Newsweek and Times reporter Ed Klein on the presumably arch liberal Diane Rehm show (guest hosted by the quite liberal Katie Kay).
Among the various questions I have: Apparently this is something he did with reporters, freely, openly.
And yet reporters hid this from us until Ed Klein accidentally left the cat out of the bag.
Fifty years later and reporters still act as if it's their sacred duty to lie on behalf of the Kennedys and hide their transgressions from the public.
I don't know if you know this or not, but one of his favorite topics of humor was indeed Chappaquiddick itself. And he would ask people, "have you heard any new jokes about Chappaquiddick?" That is just the most amazing thing. It's not that he didn't feel remorse about the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, but that he still always saw the other side of everything and the ridiculous side of things, too.
The claim is that he liked these jokes as they came "at his own expense." Really? At his expense? Would he guffaw at some of the rib-ticklers about manslaughter we were so enjoying yesterday?
What's blue and white and wet all over?
Mary Jo Kopechne's cold, cyanotic corpse.
I got a million of 'em.
Dating Myself: Robert Chambers, the "Preppie Killer" who strangled Jennifer Levin in Central Park in 1986, also enjoyed "jokes" about the woman he murdered.
In the beginning of this clip, we see Robert Chambers strangling a Barbie doll in a "joking" fashion.
— DrewM Obama and his team apparently thought so much of this Mark Lloyd guy they created a job for him, "Chief Diversity Officer".
I'm not sure if it's his admiration for Chavez or willingness to disparage freedom of speech they liked the most
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
Check out the full Newsbusters' story on this guy.
What's Chavez been up to lately? Not much, just shutting down media outlets and throwing people in jail for "media crimes".
Venezuela has revoked the licences of dozens of radio stations as part of a wider crackdown which could jail people deemed guilty of "media crimes" for up to four years.
At least 13 stations went off the air over the weekend and another 21 were expected to follow soon in an effort by President Hugo Chávez to extend his socialist revolution.
The move followed last week's introduction of a draft law to jail journalists and broadcasters who "harm the interests of the state", "cause panic" or "disturb social peace". Critics denounced the moves as a recipe for censorship. "What we are witnessing is the most comprehensive assault on free speech in Venezuela since Chávez came to power," said Jose Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch.
Seems the press has a dog in this particular fight and that they might want to ask Obama or Lloyd if they think this kind of stuff is and interesting idea and if they plan on subscribing to Chavez's newsletter. More likely they will ignore it figuring they won't be eaten at all or at least last by this particular alligator.
Between his support for every tyrant he can find, a willingness to abandon friends fighting for freedom and appointments of wannabe dictators like this guy Lloyd, you might start to get the idea that Obama is a radical leftists with very little respect for American traditions or values.
Heck of a job 52%! Heck of a job!
— Uncle Jimbo I realize there are plenty of shameless lying shills tossing whatever lingers of their reputations out the window to support the Obama, but Paul Krugman astounds. He has an article today explaining that while $9 Trillion in debt may sound like a lot, it's not a big deal and we'll all be fine. No reason to panic or stop shoveling money out of the Treasury on socialized medicine and other gargantuan spending debacles. Just follow the savior and we will reach the progressive promised land.
So new budget projections show a cumulative deficit of $9 trillion over the next decade. According to many commentators, thats a terrifying number, requiring drastic action in particular, of course, canceling efforts to boost the economy and calling off health care reform.
The truth is more complicated and less frightening. Right now deficits are actually helping the economy. In fact, deficits here and in other major economies saved the world from a much deeper slump. The longer-term outlook is worrying, but its not catastrophic.
Well a principled brainiac like Krugman has obviously believed in the healing power of deficits for a long time right? Hmmm let's go back to those thrilling days of yesteryear when the evil chimp W ruled and every dime he wasted was a tragedy.
TONY JONES: Well, the US is not just labouring under a record trade
deficit, there are warnings tonight that its budget deficit could
precipitate a Latin American style financial crisis.
economist Paul Krugman says the US will face a severe downturn before
the end of the decade unless the $500 billion fiscal debt is rectified....
PROFESSOR PAUL KRUGMAN, PRINCETON ECONOMIST: Well, basically we have a
world-class budget deficit not just as in absolute terms of course -
it's the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world - but it's
a budget deficit that as a share of GDP is right up there.
It's comparable to the worst we've ever seen in this country.....
So, if you take a look, the only thing that sustains the US right now
is the fact that people say, "Well America's a mature, advanced country
and mature, advanced countries always, you know, get their financial
house in order," but there's not a hint that that's on the political
horizon, so I think we're looking for a collapse of confidence some
time in the not-too-distant future.
What a fucking douche. I fail to comprehend how this jackass continues to be looked on as smart. Is he not aware that what he says can and will be used against him in the court of common sense. The left's only principle is that they are right.
— DrewM What could possibly go wrong?
Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.
Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."
"Health Choices Commissioner"? Doesn't that sound like such a friendly, helpful person? Just someone looking out for your health, wanting to make sure you have choices? And oh yeah, give them complete access to your personal information. Or else.
As Mark Steyn has repeatedly said, turning your health over to the government reconfigures the relationship between the state and the individual. Once the state is responsible for your physical well being, there is simply no aspect of your life that is off limits.
But hey, we should do it for Teddy!
I'm very late getting around to reading Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism but it strikes me this would be the perfect symbol for the office of "Health Choices Commissioner"
— Gabriel Malor
August 27, 2009
— DrewM You see, she wasn't killed as much as she was a good liberal who took one for the team or something (safe link to NRO).
We don't know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she'd have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history. What we don't know, as always, could fill a Metrodome.
Still, ignorance doesn't preclude a right to wonder. So it doesn't automatically make someone (aka, me) a Limbaugh-loving, aerial-wolf-hunting NRA troll for asking what Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted's death, and what she'd have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.
Who knows maybe she'd feel it was worth it.
I put the Matt Cooper thing in the headlines before Ace posted it and I said it was the "dimwitted quote of the day, so far". Never in my wildest dreams however did I think it would be topped in such spectacularly stupid and disgusting fashion. I'm not ready to call it the worst yet or that we are likely to see before it's all said and done. We've still got two days until the guy is buried.
It never ceases to amaze me that liberals, especially liberal women, who look to Democrats to vindicate their feminist ideas are willing to put up with sexual abuse, offer themselves up sexually or even think women might be happy to die for them.
This is their idea of what political heroes should be? Sick stuff.
Somewhat related...there's a debate whether opponents of health care reform should acquiesce to the Democrats new idea of calling it "KennedyCare". I say fine.
First, Kennedy is not nearly as popular outside of liberal salons as they think.
Second, when a lot of people think of Kennedy they think of three things: dangerous behind the wheel, bloated and dead. Strikes me that's a perfect metaphor for Obama-Kennedy Care or whatever we wind up calling it.
UPDATE: If launching Kennedy's career to a whole new level wasn't enough, I'm sure Mary Jo Kopechne would be happy to know she provided a lifetime of humor (for him, not her obviously).
Yeah, I'm pretty much not feeling bad about joking about this SOBs death.
— Open Blog I know everyones still in mourning about yesterdays grim events. Like all of you I was heartbroken over the tragic lack of kittehs in last nights ONT, but we must soldier on in these dark times. Its how Teddy would want things to be. So to make it up to you, Ive posted several hundred kitten pics below the fold to cheer you up. From somewhere, Teddy is looking up and smiling upon us.
Not sure if this got posted recently (or at all), but it cannot be seen enough times. In this video clip from 1979 we see an exchange between a sheer genius and a blithering idiot as they discuss economics. I think it should be obvious to any impartial observer that Mr. Friedman was served his own head on a platter due to the eloquent and irrefutable arguments made by his opponent in this debate. Clearly this was a mismatch:
Clip courtesy of Dori Monsons Olde Tyme Smooth & Groovin Radio Talk Show. (While there, be sure to view the mugshot of the guy who caught on fire after being tasered by cruel and heartless police officers. No laughing. Really, I mean it. I'm very serious about this.)
Meanwhile, Im happy to present our new sister blog (like sister cities, except that were not cities) called Zug.com. Hopefully well be able to maintain this relationship, at least as long as they continue cranking out useful articles such as The Cheap Booze Taste Test. Of course, once we've wrung them dry we have a nice warm spot for them under the AoS bus. Here's the scenario:
The economy might still be in shambles, but that doesn't change the fact that you've still got financial obligations to meet. You need a reliable car. You need comprehensive health insurance. You need to be able to get blind drunk, and you need it on the cheap.
That's where I and my panel of objective, dedicated judges come in. We're rating the best-tasting cheap booze across the three main branches of alcohol: beer, wine, and malt liquor. We'll taste for quality, but more importantly we'll rate for price.
The quest begins:
"Since we were tackling all three types of hooch at once, I took some time to acclimate myself to the store (which, sadly, frowned on my camera). The place smelled like a nursing home: cigarettes and stale urine. The fluorescent light accented the bags under everyone's eyes. While I stood at the door to the fridge eyeing my options, a line four deep formed behind me. "Oh, sorry guys, have at it," I said as I ducked aside. I tripped as I stepped on someone's two-year-old. I immediately apologized to the little guy. "He's fine," his obese mother/guardian/possible abductor told me. She handed him a few 40 oz bottles to carry, and they were off."
That's all you know and all you need to know. Go read the rest on your own. Below the fold is a veritable garden of kitteh delights awaiting you...
— Ace A few more days off. Which is fine with me, actually.
He joins many Americans in having numerous weeks off from work.
USAToday is of course very understanding:
et's face it: In terms of downtime, President Obama's vacation has been a bit of a gyp.
First, he had to interrupt his R&R to renominate Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Then he got the bad news about his friend Ted Kennedy.
And then there are the latest dispatches from the summer of no love for the nation's lawmakers and what they might mean for the president's No. 1 legislative priority, an overhaul of the nation's health care system.
Huh. The president has duties even when on vacation. Who would have thought.
I don't know how Obama is going to handle pressure. He might handle it well, being fundamentally detached, unserious, and dream-dazed, and so immune to the normal stressors.
On the other hand, I kind of worry that this poseur has never had a position of responsibility in his life -- his highest-stress position was editing the Law Review 20 years ago -- and it's possible he's going to freak and crack as he experiences difficulties and trouble for the first time in his life.
Um, Okay: Runningrebel tips this from The Politico:
White House spokesman Bill Burton told reporters ... "As I recall, the previous president [took] quite a bit of vacation himself, and I don't think anyone bemoaned that."
Nah. No one bemoaned it. Michael Moore made an entire movie about it, but no one bemoaned it.
— Ace Exurban League made me laugh with this riff on Matt Cooper's "gee this is just like 9.11/wait not just like 9.11, only pretty much like 9/11" stupidity:
Predictions on Matt's next tweet? My guess: I'm flying to S.F. coach while my friend flies 1st class. Which is a lot like apartheid.
Followed an hour later with: No, no, not *exactly* like apartheid... just the same tragic feel. Should have said "apartheidy." Stupid 140-character limit.
— Ace I think some people need to sit down with a beer.
A memo arguing that African-Americans should unite behind a single black candidate in the race for mayor of Atlanta is about to become a prime topic of debate.
The material, which we include below, is said to be distributed by Aaron Turpeau, a long-time City Hall figure, on behalf of something called the Black Leadership Forum.
Turpeau argues that Council President Lisa Borders is the only candidate who can prevent the election of Councilwoman Mary Norwood as the first white mayor since Atlanta Mayor Sam Massell.
Both Borders and state Sen. Kasim Reed, also an African-American, have scheduled pressers this afternoon. AJC colleagues Eric Stirgus and Ernie Suggs will be there. We anticipate that Reed will demand that Borders renounce the memo.
Here is some key language plucked from the memo:
1. There is a chance for the first time in 25 years that African Americans could lose the Mayoral seat in Atlanta, Georgia, especially if there is a run-off;
2. Time is of the essence because in order to defeat a Norwood (white) mayoral candidacy we have to get out now and work in a manner to defeat her without a runoff, and the key is a significant Black turnout in the general election;
3. The reasons support should be given to Lisa Borders is... she is the best black candidate in the race who has a chance to win the election because she can attract downtown white support...
Whats At Stake?
Determining whats at stake depends on perspective:
1. The view that the times are too serious to stand on the sidelines is absolutely correct from the perspective of a black mayor at all cost. In fact, if a white candidate were to win the 2009 mayoral race, it would be just as significant in political terms as Maynard Jacksons victory in 1973.
2. Therefore, the question becomes, if that were the case, how would African American interests be addressed... ?;
4. The changing demographics which show a more rapid growth in the citys white population (faster and a higher percentage than anywhere else in the country) requires that we critically evaluate all candidates;
At the end of the day, when the morning comes, a black agenda would better enable us to have our interests respected by and our influence realized in any administration.
Colorblind society, etc.
There is sad irony in the fact that he pimps his preferred candidate, Lisa Borders, as being the black candidate who can draw the most white support, even as he composes a memo stating how all blacks must unite to prevent the tragedy of a white woman winning the mayoral race.
As Jeneane Garafalo says, all opposition to Obama "is all about hatin' on a black man as president."
Thanks to DJ.
— Ace Tester, vague:
Tester said it is more important to find a combination of ideas that can gather enough votes to get out of the Senate - although he is not yet certain it can be done. He also said the bill can't add to the deficit, even if that means adopting a tax on wealthier people to help pay for it.
"I too am worried about the national debt," Tester said. "I certainly don't support taxing the middle class; they pay their fair share already. But I think you are going to have to give something to get something."
As has been pointed out six bazillion times, Obama's plan already envisions higher taxes on the rich and that's not nearly enough to cover the new costs. So when he's talking about "you" giving up something to get something, he does in fact mean you, and not some rich people you don't know.
Represenative Markey is muchclearer on the point. She lapses into reckless candor here; it will only be hours before she retracts and claims she was "taken out of context."
Some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation's health-care system, Rep. Betsy Markey told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins on Wednesday.
Markey has repeatedly said during the August congressional recess that Medicare spending needs to be reined in to help pay for reforming the broader health-care system.
"There's going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work," Markey said at a Congress on Your Corner event at CSU. "But we have to do this because we're Americans."
Sharon Begley just emailed me to say these people have obviously contracted some form of viral insanity, thus causing them to believe the "myths" about ObamaCare that all rational people know are false.
Karl Rove is pushing these "myths" too, of course, in the WSJ. But that's to be expected. He's a lunatic.
wo weeks ago, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod said in a now legendary "viral" email that, "It's a myth that health insurance reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits." This was sent out the day before Mr. Obama told a Montana town hall that he'd pay for health-care reform by "eliminating . . . about $177 billion over 10 years" for "what's called Medicare Advantage." And it was two days before Mr. Obama told a Colorado town hall he'd cover "two-thirds" of the "roughly $900 billion" of his plan's cost by "eliminating waste," again citing Medicare Advantage.
Who's right? As a former senior adviser, I can tell you who: the president. What's more, according to a White House fact sheet titled "Paying for Health Care Reform," Mr. Axelrod was misleading his readers. It notes the administration would cut $622 billion from Medicare and Medicaid, with a big chunk coming from Medicare Advantage, to pay for overhauling health care. Mr. Obama heralded these cuts as "common sense" in his June 13 radio address.
Medicare Advantage was enacted in 2003 to allow seniors to use Medicare funds to buy private insurance plans that fit their needs and their budgets. They get better care and better value for their money.
Medicare Advantage also has built-in incentives to encourage insurers to offer lower costs and better benefits. It's a program that puts patients in charge, not the government, which is why seniors like it and probably why the administration hates it.
Already, an estimated 10.2 million seniorsone out of five in Americahave enrolled in Medicare Advantage. Mr. Obama is proposing to cut the program by nearly 20% and thus reduce the amount of money each will have to buy insurance. This will likely force most of them to lose the insurance they have now. Yet Mr. Obama promised in late July in New Hampshire that, "if you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan."
This is that famous money we're "wasting subsidizing insurers," it seems. It's what I figured it was: Not subsidizing insurers at all, but subsidizing seniors so they can buy private insurance more cheaply.
Obama has been mentioning cutting this "subsidy for insurance companies" in every single speech he's made.
— Ace 50-43... losing one in approval and gaining one in disapproval.
Eh, a bit of noise. But once again: The trend is obvious, persistent, and dramatic.
If When he drops below 50% in the coming weeks, it will be the third-fastest fall below 50% of any postwar president.
Rasmussen has Obama picking up support, flipping from 49-50 to 50-49. Noise.
For cowbell, the original Cowbell Girl, Kim Richards. Here, in Tuff Turf. I was sort of obsessed with her as a kid, and watched thoroughly rotten shows like Hello, Larry just because she was in them. more...
It feels a bit like 9/11 on Martha's Vineyard. End-of-summer weather is achingly beautiful but the mood is melancholy because of Teddy.
America stunned as 77-year-old chronic alcoholic succumbs to old age; Al Qaeda suspected.
He's now twittering he didn't mean it that way, he just sort of meant it that way.
Thanks to AHFF Geoff.
Endure: We can't really live. Not anymore. Not with Kennedy gone.
— Ace Mike Kelly, by the way, died heroically in a car accident. I say heroically because he was covering the Iraq War when the car he was in flipped over.
In 1990, he wrote this GQ article. Commenters are recommending it (as is LauraW.) so I'm linking it before I've read it.
It contains this heroic moment, with a chivalrous Kennedy once again looking out for women:
It is after midnight and Kennedy and [Senator Chris] Dodd [D-CountryWide] are just finishing up a long dinner in a private room on the first floor of the restaurants annex. They are drunk. Their dates, two very young blondes, leave the table to go to the bathroom. (The dates are drunk too. Theyd always get their girls very, very drunk, says a former Brasserie waitress.) Betty Loh, who served the foursome, also leaves the room. Raymond Campet, the co-owner of La Brasserie, tells Gaviglio the senators want to see her.
As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodds lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room. Kennedy, Dodd and their dates leave shortly thereafter, following a friendly argument between the senators over the check.
Eyewitness Betty Loh told me that Kennedy had three or four cocktails in his first half hour at the restaurant and wine with dinner. When she walked into the room after Gaviglio had gone in, she says, what I saw was Senator Kennedy on top of Carla, who was on top of Senator Dodds lap, and the tablecloth was sort of slid off the table cause the table was knocked overnot completely, but just on Senator Dodds lap a little bit, and of course the glasses and the candlesticks were totally spilled and everything. And right when I walked in, Senator Kelly jumped off and he leaped up, composed himself and got up. And Carla jumped up and ran out of the room.
Henry Rollins, a guy now primarily famous for being famous, manages to note the obvious, putting him well above the MSM.
— Ace Karl from Hot Air's Green Room has a great post about the MSM's differing treatment of the Robert Novak and Ted Kennedy Obits. For Novak, the Plame non-scandal is mentioned early, sometimes even in the second paragraph. Sometimes even in the second sentence.
For Kennedy, Chappaquiddick is only mentioned deep, deep into the article.
But the real find here is this Carl Cannon piece on Chappaquiddick and the media's selective memory.
I thought it was good piece as it explained why conservatives care about Chappaquiddick and liberals in the MSM are wrong to dismiss these concerns as merely held by "haters."
But then it got... appalling, as it recounted the Chappaquiddick Manslaughter in harrowing detail. Details I never knew about before. It's the little things that stick with you, and there are some little things here (not little at all for Mary Jo Kopechne) that truly bring home how vile this man was.
So, Howie Kurtz is surprised Chappaquiddick and Kopechne are hot search terms, and that some of the "comments are pretty harsh?"
He ought to read Carl Cannon's piece. You know what's harsh? Kennedy returning to the party from which he absconded with Mary Jo Kopechne and telling his (married) male friends not to tell Kopechne's (unmarried) female friends that their coworker and friend was currently lying, state of life or death questionable, beneath a river.
In order, he would (illegally) later tell police, to keep the women from going off on some hare-brained rescue attempt that might jeopardize their lives. See, he withheld news of the crash from Mary Jo Kopechne's friends to protect them.
He was all about protecting the women.
That is one of the several fresh (to me) facts that is sticking with me. Returning to a party and deliberately withholding the possible death of a woman (who might actually have been rescuable at that point; we'll never know) from her friends.
Treating Kopechne's life as completely disposable, and a mere political obstacle. Dead? Alive? Who knows; gotta sober up and start working on a story for the police (including claims of heroic rescue attempts, naturally). She was just an unconnected party-girl anyway; the world is filled with them, and won't miss her much.
On the other hand, there were issues of genuine consequence, such as contriving a story as to why exactly Kennedy was driving drunk to the beach with a woman not his wife.
It really is sickening stuff. I recommend that all those liberals in the MSM who can't fathom why we conservatives still care about a petty little manslaughter read particularly closely about Teddy Kennedy's long, heroic walk back to the party he just left, and the telephones he passed along the way.
One of which was no more than 150 yards from the site of Kopechne's eventual death.
— Ace Seriously. When I saw this in Hot Air's headlines, I thought there was some lunatic debate over this.
Well, you can tell a number of specifically-defined lies. It tells you what lies are permitted. It's not as if a terrorist is going to get that list or anything and realize if an interrogator is telling Authorized Lie Number Three -- which is, and I'm not making this up, claiming to already "know everything" and parading about a deceptively thick dossier loaded with mostly-blank pages to convince a subject you have a fat file on him (did I mention I'm not making that up? That is one of the permissible lies) -- that a terrorist is going to recognize it as Authorized Lie Number Three.
But apart from not allowing any kind of bodily contact like a slap, or any kind of threat, or even any kind of lie except a couple of hoary old cop-lies that are so old few cops bother with them anymore -- yeah, the Army Field Manual is really all we need.
"The Army Field Manual is very, very restrictive in what it can do," said Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee. "For high-value detainees, it's a joke. ... In theory, it sounds great."
The guidelines are all psychological in nature. The methods include good cop-bad cop, the silent treatment, and a trick in which interrogators can pretend to be from another country.
The silent treatment.
But the administration, which is establishing a special unit for questioning high-value detainees, is now indicating it is open to examining new methods -- even as Attorney General Eric Holder launches a probe into alleged prisoner abuse under the Bush administration.
Critics say the field manual guidelines just might not be enough to shake a hardened terrorist.
Hoekstra said he believes a lot of the intelligence obtained from high-value detainees over the past several years would not have been uncovered if interrogators were limited to the field manual all along. He said going forward, interrogators should be allowed to do more, since the approved techniques are "not going to break anybody."
There are 19 approved techniques in the manual, last updated in 2006. The manual, which Obama designated as the standard for interrogations when he took office, prohibits techniques like waterboarding, electric shock, forced nudity, mock executions and other acts.
It permits interrogators to ask questions in a "rapid fire" sequence; repeat questions over and over; try to break the prisoner by focusing on his emotional anxieties or personal fears; change the environment in which the prisoner is being questioned; and, under very specific circumstances, keep a detainee separated from others.
Charles Stimson, who as the former deputy assistant defense secretary for detainee affairs worked on the 2006 revision of the field manual, said the administration is expected to consider other techniques.
While Stimson defended the field manual guidelines as effective in many cases, he said there are others that could be put to good use.
"We will be constraining ourselves, inappropriately so, if we confined the CIA (or HIG) to the 19 techniques in the Army Field Manual," he said. "Our enemy trains to our protocol, studies our protocol ... (They) will know how to resist."
While "lying" might seem like an obvious interrogation method, the Army Field Manual only approves it in very specific circumstances.
Under the "we know all approach," interrogators are allowed to "subtly" convince the prisoner that they know what he or she knows. This can be complemented by the "file and dossier" approach, in which interrogators present a "file" to a prisoner that appears to be much bigger than it really is, by being "padded with extra paper" and other decorations.
Other methods are mild enough to be authorized in any school principal's office.
One method, the "direct approach," is simply when the interrogator asks questions. Another involves creating incentives for cooperation. The "emotional pride" approach is when the interrogator flatters the prisoner into cooperating by appealing to his ego. The "silent approach" is also relatively mild.
"When employing this technique, the (interrogator) says nothing to the source, but looks him squarely in the eye, preferably with a slight smile on his face," the guide says, urging the interrogator not to be the first to break eye contact.
Wow. Tough stuff. That's almost as cruel as the dreaded "Homo says what?" technique (pioneered by the North Vietnamese in 1952, of course).
The Obama Administration, which lies to the American public on a daily basis, is said to be keeping an "open mind" (seriously, this is not a joke) about "expanding" the range of options to include controversial, innovative new techniques such as lying to suspects.
Daniel Henniger is right -- the war on terror is dead. In fact, so is even "The routine police work against terror."
So let's stop pretending and make it official. The terrorists won; America lost; Obama (with an assist from McCain) have decided that it's contrary to American principles to so much as lie to a terrorist.
Odd that everyone has to sacrifice except the Democrats' biggest donors.
41 queries taking 2.3022 seconds, 105 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.