The Osterley Times

Sunday, November 15, 2009

O'Reilly freaks out over Moussaoui trial: "Four years! Four years of bull!"

Listen as O'Reilly invites on guests and then simply shouts at them.

He's incensed that terrorists are going to be given a trial. It's quite clear that he doesn't believe in the American system of justice. And, sadly, that's increasingly becoming the Republican position.

Where I will give O'Reilly credit is that I could never imagine Beck debating any point with two Democrats.

Borelli on Hannity: A "big message" in black community is "you are owed something... and don't have to work hard"

We are used to watching fat dorks like Hannity blame poor people for their own poverty, but they usually don't bring race into the equation. I thought they hated all poor people equally.

Dobbs gave up on $9M to Pursue Birther Nonsense.

The New York Post are reporting that Lou Dobbs was warned in July of this year to drop birther stories about the president, and that Dobbs became incensed by this.

"It seems this story is dead because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef," read Klein's memo to employees of "Lou Dobbs Tonight."

Klein's move incensed Dobbs, who wasn't shy about telling off his boss.

"They have been talking pretty regularly since then," a source said. "And it's been pretty bad."

What does it say about Dobbs that he continued with this nonsense despite the fact that his employers were ordering him to back off?

I am all for journalistic licence, and for people to resist the attempts of those higher up to silence them when they are in pursuit of the truth, but Dobbs was doing this in an attempt to prove that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

In doing so he put himself in bed with Orly Taitz and some of the most irrational people on the political map.

At that point his job was always in jeopardy, and yet Dobbs persisted. Indeed, it is looking as if Dobbs jumped from CNN before he was pushed.

Last month, Dobbs' William Morris agent, CNN sources said, bluntly told Klein: "You're unhappy, he's unhappy. Let him go."

Dobbs told Klein in recent weeks he wanted to go "the opinion route," laying the final groundwork for his departure.

CNN had been unlikely to renew Dobbs' contract in 2011 anyway, sources said.

CNN is pushing hard to position itself as a middle-of-the-road news source, between left-leaning MSNBC and conservative Fox News Channel.

"Lou was polluting the CNN brand," said a TV insider.

I presume that Dobbs persisted with the birther stories - despite the warnings from above - because he has genuinely convinced himself that there must be something to these stories.

That makes him an utter idiot. A total whackjob. I could understand him pushing this nonsense if he felt that it helped his ratings by feeding the tinfoil hat wearers, but if he genuinely believed in this nonsense then he's sadder than I realised.

The departure came at significant personal cost to Dobbs, who still had 1½ years left in his back-loaded, five-year, $35 million contract. Dobbs' final year would have brought him $9 million.

So, he was willing to sacrifice $9 million rather than drop this nonsense about Obama and Kenya.

And there's worse news still for Dobbs:

A Fox News Channel spokeswoman insisted her network wasn't interested in hiring the veteran.

I thought he would have found an open door over at Fox News, so that genuinely surprised me. It appears that Dobbs is too whacky even for the channel that hires Glenn Beck. How far out there do you have to be for that to happen?

Far out enough to believe that Obama was born in Kenya and willing to give up $9 million a year in order to pursue that theory I suppose.

Click here for full article.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Just Do It... I Don't Care What You Do... But DO IT!

Beltway logic:

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right.

So, making a decision quickly is far more important than whether or not one makes the right decision?

Isn't that the logic that led the US into Iraq? Why is Broder considered an intellectual when he is actually spouting spurious nonsense?

Read his article here.

FACT CHECK: Palin's book goes rogue on some facts.

Why am I not remotely surprised by this? AP have studied Palin's new book and found lies like this all over it:

PALIN: Rails against taxpayer-financed bailouts, which she attributes to Obama. She recounts telling daughter Bristol that to succeed in business, "you'll have to be brave enough to fail."

THE FACTS: Palin is blurring the lines between Obama's stimulus plan — a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts — and the federal bailout that Republican presidential candidate John McCain voted for and President George W. Bush signed.

Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as McCain's vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said "taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution, to the problems on Wall Street." A week later, she said "ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy."

During the vice presidential debate in October, Palin praised McCain for being "instrumental in bringing folks together" to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said "it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in."

That's only one of the twelve examples which AP have found of Palin simply re-inventing what happened to suit the needs of her tea party audience.

This is what we witnessed her do throughout the election. Andrew Sullivan compiled a list of the many, many lies she told when running for VP, so we shouldn't be remotely surprised that her new book continues to promote them as if they are true.

Palin lied when she repeatedly claimed to have said, "Thanks, but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere; in fact, she openly campaigned for the federal project when running for governor.
Palin lied when she denied that Wasilla's police chief and librarian had been fired; in fact, both were given letters of termination the previous day.
Palin lied when she wrote in the NYT that a comprehensive review by Alaska wildlife officials showed that polar bears were not endangered; in fact, email correspondence between those scientists showed the opposite.
Palin lied when she claimed in her convention speech that an ~~oil~~ gas pipeline "began" under her guidance; in fact, the pipeline was years from breaking ground, if at all.
Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.
Palin lied when she denied having said that humans do not contribute to climate change; in fact, she had previously proclaimed that human activity was not to blame.
Palin lied when she claimed that Alaska produces 20 percent of the country's domestic energy supply; in fact, the actual figures, based on any interpretation of her words, are much, much lower.
Palin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.

The list goes on and on and on.

But, Palin's audience don't care about what is true. That's the saddest thing. They care that she is against abortion. As long as that's true, nothing else matters.

During last years campaign I was astonished at just how many lies the McCain-Palin ticket were telling. It was the least honest campaign I have seen in my lifetime. Indeed, eventually the lying became so prolific that even the MSM couldn't ignore it any longer.

But, despite eventually being called on it, Palin's book continues her casual relationship with the truth. I can only presume that she doesn't care because her audience doesn't.

Click here for full article.

Kruathammer: Giving KSM the rights of an American Citizen is Unconscionable.

The inevitable right wing noise machine has kicked into action, decrying Obama for treating KSM and others as "ordinary criminals". I notice that Kruathammer identifies "ordinary criminals" as burglars etc. Of course, ordinary criminals are sometimes serial killers, rapists, and worse. In Austria recently we had the case of Josef Fritzl, a man who kidnapped his own daughter and repeatedly raped her for years whilst keeping her locked in his own cellar. I know that this crime is much more serious than burglary, but the seriousness of the crime is reflected in the sentencing; the venue for the hearing - a court of law - does not change because some crimes are more horrific than others.

So, I am with Karl Levin, KSM should be treated like the common terrorist criminal that he is. Kruathammer appears to buy into the Republican notion that one can't be a criminal and a terrorist. As if the fact that KSM and others declared war on the United States gives them the powers of a state and elevates them above the position which I think they deserve, which is deluded narcissist.

Timothy McVeigh also declared a sort of war against his own country, but no-one argued that, as a terrorist, he must be treated outside of the United States legal system.

Individuals who declare war on country's are usually regarded as nutcases and tried in criminal courts.

Kruathammer and the Republicans seem determined to give these guys a status which they simply do not deserve. I find it truly baffling that they would wish to elevate these people into warriors.

UPDATE:

I am glad that Cenk feels the exact same way that I do about this. This has nothing to do with KSM, this is about American defining her values.

UPDATE II:

Booman has a very interesting theory as to why right wingers are so up in arms over all this.

The right is afraid that these folks will be convicted and sentenced to death for a crime that can proven without resorting to torture. And, then, what will be left of their justification for despoiling our country's reputation for upholding human rights?
Their continued expression of fear at the prospect of having these terrorists present on American soil is pathetic. They ought to spend the rest of their days huddling in their 1950's-built nuclear bombshelters. The only thing they fear more than terrorist attacks is having to face up to the pointlessness of what has been done with their support.

I think that is a very well made point.

Friday, November 13, 2009

'NY trial' for key 9/11 suspects.

This is very good news.

Alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be sent from Guantanamo Bay to New York for trial in a civilian court, reports say.

Citing unnamed government officials, the reports said he would be transferred from the US prison camp in Cuba with four other suspects. US Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to announce the decision later, the officials say. Mr Mohammed has admitted planning the 9/11 attacks, the US military says.

I never understood the reticence of the Bush administration to put these guys on trial. I mean, apart from the obvious fact that they tortured them to get them to confess, but one would hope that they have more evidence than simply a confession obtained in such an immoral way.

Obama is doing what should have been done years ago. And it's astonishing that the Republicans, the party who usually lead the "Hang them, flog them" brigade, in this instance didn't even want to go near a court of law.

As I say, that's probably because they felt sure that their torture methods would be revealed in a court of law, but that's an irrelevance now that we have all found out what they were up to anyway.

The decision to try them in a New York court appears to be part of Mr Obama's efforts to close Guantanamo by 22 January 2010.

His administration says it will try some detainees in US courts and repatriate or resettle others who are not perceived as a threat.

I've always felt that the Bush regime gave these guys a status which they have never deserved. They are not an army and they are not soldiers. They are criminals. And they should be prosecuted and sent down like the common criminals they are, not held up as warriors.

Click here for full article.

Obama and Netanyahu's 70 minute one-on-one "unprecedented".

Obama was due to talk to Netanyahu for 30 minutes, but the meeting actually went on for some 70 minutes. Is Obama telling Netanyahu that Hillary was, perhaps, overly generous to him when she was in Israel?

For the tone of Bill Burns had changed subtly but markedly from the one taken by Clinton, giving one the clear impression that a fair amount of walking back is taking place.

Burns: "We seek to create the best possible circumstances for negotiations, working with the parties, working with key regional partners like Egypt and the Quartet. We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements; we consider the Israeli offer to restrain settlement activity to be a potentially important step, but it obviously falls short of the continuing road map obligation for a full settlement freeze. We seek to deepen international support for the Palestinian Authority’s impressive plan to build over the next couple years the institutions that a responsible Palestinian state requires. And we also seek progress toward peace between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon, as part of a broader peace among Israel and all of its neighbors." (emphasis added)

Clinton's gaffe may very well have contributed to Abbas' decision not to seek re-election and the Obama team are giving every impression that they are now leaning back towards the Palestinians.

The Obama administration now seems to be trying to desperately signal to Abbas that it is trying to give him more to work with -- and hoping it is not too late."Almost everything cited here shows a subtle but noticeable shift back towards the Palestinian perspective," says the American Task Force for Palestine's Hussein Ibish.

I'm relieved that Obama is bringing this back from the brink. I thought Hillary's comments were crass. And I'm pleased to see Burns refer to a "continuing road map obligation" when referring to settlement freeze, rather than the Israeli take on this, that it is a Palestinian pre-negotiation demand.

Israel agreed to this when she signed up for the Road Map and Netanyahu is attempting to move the goalposts when he claims that to agree to a settlement freeze is to prejudge the negotiations.

Click here for full article.

Maddow: Big Business and the "Child Labor Endorsing, Pro-Slavery Freaks"

Okay. It's official. Mark me down as naive...

American business groups are "worried" about laws that prohibit produce which comes from child, slave, and prison labour.

Let's say we can get our head around the prison labour part of their argument, are there seriously people out there still arguing that we should allow profit to be made out of slave labour, including child labour?

Democracy in Iraq.

During the tenure of George Bush we were told that we were in Iraq in order to spread freedom and democracy. I don't know if any of us were naive enough to believe that, but I also don't think any of us would have expected to find our soldiers to be fighting and dying for this:

An Iraqi court has ordered the Guardian to pay Nouri al-Maliki damages of 100m dinar (£52,000) after supporting a complaint by the Iraqi prime minister's intelligence service that he had been defamed by a Guardian story in April describing him as increasingly autocratic.

The ruling ignored testimony by three expert witnesses from the Iraqi journalists' union summoned by the court, who all said that the article was neither defamatory nor insulting and argued that no damages were warranted.

The Guardian said it would appeal against the verdict, first through Iraqi appeals courts and then the federal court. The judgment was heavily criticised tonight as a further blow against the freedom of Iraq's already embattled news media.

The foreign secretary, David Miliband, said: "I was very concerned to hear reports of today's court ruling. Media freedom is vital in any democracy. If the case goes to appeal, I ask the Iraqi authorities to ensure that their courts, which are independent, follow due process in accordance with the Iraqi constitution."

The Guardian have been fined for breaking a law which states that Iraq does, "not allow foreigners to publish articles critical of the prime minister or president".

I mean, is this for real? This is the democracy that we are sending people to fight and to die for?

Our own newspapers are being sued - and losing the case in Iraqi courts - for daring to state that Maliki is becoming increasingly autocratic.

Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, said: "This is a dismaying development. Prime minister Maliki is trying to construct a new, free Iraq. Freedom means little without free speech – and means even less if a head of state tries to use the law of libel to punish criticism or dissent. We will vigorously contest this judgment."

The article in question, by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, an award-winning staff correspondent for the Guardian, quoted three unnamed members of the Iraqi national intelligence service who claimed that the prime minister was beginning to run Iraqi affairs with an authoritarian hand.

After expert witnesses testified against the award of damages, the court heard evidence from a new, five-member panel who argued that Iraqi publishing law did not allow foreigners to publish articles critical of the prime minister or president, or to interfere in Iraqi internal affairs. The advice appeared to overlook the fact that Abdul-Ahad is an Iraqi citizen.

It's a very strange democracy that we are building in Iraq, where criticism of the ruling powers is, in itself, something which can be punished as a crime.

Rohan Jayasekera, associate editor of Index on Censorship, who is conducting a study of access to information in the runup to Iraq's elections, said: "It's a shame that Maliki has allowed the Iraqi security services to use his name in this way.

"It's a kind of abuse of the prime minister's office. It sends a worrying message to those who hoped for better treatment of the media in Iraq.

"Maliki frequently says that the only justification for silencing the media is if it provokes sectarianism, enmity and hatred. We'd agree with the Iraqi journalists' union and say the [Guardian] article doesn't do that at all."

Muaed al-Lami, dean of the Iraqi Union of Journalists, who contributed to the court submission in support of the Guardian, said: "I feel very upset about this.

"I will help with an appeal because we found there was no insult to the prime minister, or defamation."

This is the democracy we are building? This is what we have spent seven years achieving? We have built a supposed democracy where criticism of those in power by foreigners has been outlawed.

That's a very strange form of democracy.

Click here for full article.