Month: November 2013

by digby

Obviously, I have no technical skills whatsoever, so I don’t know if this all makes technical sense.  But I found it interesting anyway and thought I’d pass it on.

Healthcare.gov has been a national news story for over a month now, but it’s often been distilled into 5 minute segments. It’s now the middle of November, and I’d like to go on a deep dive on Healthcare.gov, it’s history of development, what went wrong, and what we could do to stop things like Healthcare.gov from happening again. 

Slides with links and lots of other good stuff here

.

Rich and shameless doesn’t begin to describe it

by digby

I wrote the other day about how the lying Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Cameron had admitted in a speech that austerity was permanent despite his promises just a couple of years ago that it was a temporary measure. Here’s what he said:

Cameron made the announcement during the annual Lord Mayor’s Banquet speech in the Guildhall, where he said austerity should last forever, and Britain must get used to being a “leaner, more efficient state,” British media reported.

The remarks are in clear contrast to those the prime minister made when he came to power in 2010, saying he “didn’t come into politics to make cuts.”

“We’re tackling the deficit because we have to — not out of some ideological zeal,” said David Cameron at the time.

The prime minister added that if Britons want the economy to get healed they should also be expecting “a smaller state and a bigger and more prosperous private sector.”

He emphasised that Britain needs a fundamental culture change to champion “that typically British, entrepreneurial, buccaneering spirit, and that rewards people with the ambition to make things, sell things, and create jobs for others up and down the country.”

What I didn’t know when I wrote about it was that he made these comments from a gilded throne. Literally:

Yes, that’s him giving the speech where he says that average citizens will have to learn to live with less.

Here’s a first person account:

I work evenings and weekends at an events company. The company is great and the hours are flexible, which allows me to combine it with my main job of an internship. It’s tough, and I’ve been in a state of semi-tiredness for the last two months. I do get to work at interesting events, though, and the fanciness of the Guildhall banquet was breathtaking. Although, as one of my colleagues said: “I thought Boris Johnson was the lord mayor, that’s the only reason I agreed to work!”

The guests enjoyed a champagne reception, and then were served a starter (“a celebration of British mushrooms”), a fish course and main course of fillet of beef, all served with wine of course. In the break before dessert, coffee, dessert wine, port, brandy and whisky were served, Cameron gave his speech. We retreated downstairs to a steam-filled kitchen, where we polished the cutlery. Most of us were exhausted by this point. Dinner service is physically demanding, and I am by no means the only person who combines two or three jobs. The contrast of the two worlds was striking; someone said it was like a scene from Downton Abbey.

Maybe Cameron didn’t see the irony; perhaps he forgot about the army of waiting staff, cleaners, chefs and porters who were also present at the banquet. Perhaps he thought he was in a room of similarly rich people, who understood the necessity for austerity. Perhaps it didn’t occur to him that this message might not be as easily comprehended by those who hadn’t just enjoyed a four-course meal. Perhaps he forgot about those of us, disabled or unemployed or on the minimum wage, for whom austerity has had a catastrophic and wounding effect.

In his speech, Cameron talked about a “leaner, more efficient, more affordable state”. He argued that austerity could be a permanent government policy; a way of trimming down the administrative excesses of some public services. He framed it in the context of the current tough living conditions – a minimising of state spending, as it “comes out of the pockets of the same taxpayers whose living standards we want to see improve”.

No word yet, of course, on what changes will be made to the banquet he was speaking at. Perhaps next year there will only be three courses, or the dessert wine will be ruthlessly culled.
[…]
Each of us has just one chance at existence, and so many people’s lives are being blighted by these cuts. If this is the cruel and damaging reality of permanent austerity, then we should be telling Mr Cameron we don’t want it.

You’d think that after Mitt Romney was lambasted for being caught on tape by a wait staffer being a smug, rich prick talking to other smug rich pricks that rich pricks would be a little bit more cautious about this sort of thing. On the other hand, why bother? He’s doing what he’s doing and there seems to be little downside for him. For any of these people.

Speaking of which, here’s a prick who’s poised to get very rich, very soon:

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, one of the architects of the federal government’s rescue of the financial system, is joining private-equity firm Warburg Pincus LLC.

Mr. Geithner, who has spent most of his career outside the private sector, said in an interview he plans to start in March at the New York-based firm, known for its role in buyouts of companies including eye-care firm Bausch & Lomb Inc., luxury retailer Neiman Marcus Group Inc. and stadium concessionaire Aramark Corp.

Mr. Geithner has been credited with helping to slow the momentum of the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, but also has been criticized as too soft on Wall Street banks at the time. He has said he did what he felt was best for the economy and financial markets, and that he views the 2010 Dodd Frank financial law, in which he had a strong hand, as an antidote to risk-taking on Wall Street.

At Warburg, he will serve as president and managing director, not the kind of figurehead or advisory positions that public-sector figures often land after government stints. Mr. Geithner, 52 years old, is expected to work on mapping the firm’s strategy and management, investor relations and on matters related to the firm’s investments.

“When they approached me, they clearly wanted me to play a substantive role in helping them manage the firm,” he said. Citing the firm’s global reach and “low-key” nature, he said Warburg is “culturally very compatible with what I was looking for.”

Warburg Co-Chief Executive Charles Kaye said Mr. Geithner will be “absolutely a full-time member of the partnership. He will very much be here every day.” Mr. Geithner will report directly to the co-CEOs.

I guess it’s time for that big payday. Lord knows he’s earned it.

.

Poor, poor persecuted Tea Party

by digby

I’d laugh at the absurdity of this if it wasn’t so shocking:

I received this draft opinion from the FEC Friday afternoon. Did they think no one would notice?

Dan Backer, treasurer for several very conservative PACs, filed a request for the Tea Party Leadership Fund, aka TeaParty.net to be exempt from disclosure and filing requirements because they’re concerned about public backlash and persecution.

The request listed many instances which were ginned up to make it look like they’re being stalked, with no corresponding fact-checking on their claims. Ranging from IRS ‘persecution’ to harassment of individual members, they claimed they are entitled to an exemption from all FEC reporting and disclosure requirements, including DONORS, because they might be hassled. 

Never in a million years would I have believed the FEC would allow such a thing, particularly in light of the corruption we’ve seen from dark money in our electoral process. Yet, here is their draft opinion, summarized in the first sentence:

Yes, TPLF is entitled to an exemption from all of the above-enumerated reporting and disclosure requirements because it has demonstrated a reasonable probability that compelled disclosure would subject its supporters to threats, harassment, or reprisals.

I want you to imagine what 2014 will be like with this group as the conduit into every single state with millions upon millions of undisclosed donations. Anyone who thinks the Kochs and their compatriots wouldn’t use this as their primary avenue for buying elections hasn’t been paying close attention to much of anything.

The hearing on this issue is set for November 21st. I’ve created a petition here. If you agree that this is a complete disaster for our electoral system, please sign the petition and share it with everyone you know.

Yes, they’ve really been marginalized in American politics. Thank goodness they are finally getting some protection from the hooligans who’ve been harassing them. I don’t know who they are, but I’m pretty sure it’s not these people:

Or these:

I wonder who is?

.

Whether Janet Yellen, President Barack Obama’s latest pick to head the Federal Reserve, proves to be the financial genius our sputtering economy so desperately needs, remains to be seen.

At least we know her mind won’t be preoccupied with haute couture.

Here’s the black-on-black ensemble she sported last month when President Barack Obama officially nominated her: 

And her battle gear of choice for today’s nomination hearing on Capitol Hill:
 

Mind you, nobody has ever accused HOH of being particularly stylish. But we do manage to switch up outfits on the reg.

Yes, that is something. She’s obviously a disgusting pig who never changes her clothes.

But then, that must be a requirement of the job.  Take a look at this guy:

And no it doesn’t count as “changing it up on the reg” to switch ties.

Seriously, this is just disgusting. Professional women in conservative fields wear conservative uniforms the same way the men do. Yellen is wearing quite a smart outfit that’s completely appropriate for her age and her position and it looks good. She has no more obligation to “switch up outfits on the reg” than Ben Bernanke or any of the other million men who wear the same dreary dark suits to work every day.

Jesus. There’s really no hope for women if even Janet Yellen gets judged for her wardrobe.

.

Google gets snarky with the DOJ

by digby

I see that the latest Google report on government requests is now public. As Tech dirt points out, requests have doubled in the last three years, but also draws our attention to the somewhat sarcastic point Google makes about the FISA requests:

Google’s lawyer writes:

“We want to go even further. We believe it’s your right to know what kinds of requests and how many each government is making of us and other companies. However, the U.S. Department of Justice contends that U.S. law does not allow us to share information about some national security requests that we might receive. Specifically, the U.S. government argues that we cannot share information about the requests we receive (if any) under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But you deserve to know.

Earlier this year, we brought a federal case to assert that we do indeed have the right to shine more light on the FISA process. In addition, we recently wrote a letter of support (PDF) for two pieces of legislation currently proposed in the U.S. Congress. And we’re asking governments around the world to uphold international legal agreements that respect the laws of different countries and guarantee standards for due process are met.”

Google has to fight in court for the right to free speech about their own business. Can you believe it?

Mother Jones has more on this with a story about how all the tech companies re starting to lobby congress to rein in the NSA.  This is a good development. But it’s a sad comment on our country that it takes giant corporations being criticized by their customers for them — or anyone — to care about fundamental principles of civil liberties.

Representatives of the most important tech companies have, however, made public statements indicating that they’re likely to support bills that allow them to shed more light on government surveillance. “I was shocked that the NSA would do this—perhaps a violation of law but certainly a violation of mission,” Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt told CNN last week, in response to an October 30 Washington Post report that the NSA was tapping into Google’s servers without the company’s consent. “From a Google perspective, any internal use of Google services is unauthorized and almost certainly illegal.” Niki Fenwick, a spokesperson for Google, said that the company doesn’t comment on whether it supports specific bills, but Bloomberg News reported last week that the company, which has bulked up its lobbying presence on Capitol Hill, “seeks to end National Security Agency intrusions into its data.”

“Defending and respecting the user’s voice [is] a natural commitment for us and is why we are so committed to freedom of expression,” Colin Crowell, Twitter’s vice president for global public policy, tells Mother Jones.

.

Dispatch from America’s shooting gallery

by digby

Another story of a brave gun toting yahoo who is so “scared” of 19 year old (black) girls he had to shoot first and ask questions later:

The parents of a 19-year-old woman who was shot in the face on the porch of a suburban Detroit home say they find it hard to believe their daughter posed a threat to the man charged in her death…

Wafer, 54, was arraigned Friday afternoon on the murder and manslaughter charges as well as a felony weapons charge. A probable cause hearing was set for Dec. 18.

What happened between when McBride crashed into a parked vehicle several blocks north of Wafer’s neighborhood and the shooting remains unclear. Police received a 911 call from Wafer about 4:42 a.m., in which he tells the dispatcher: “I just shot somebody on my front porch with a shotgun, banging on my door.”

They found McBride’s body on the porch.

Under a 2006 Michigan self-defense law, a homeowner has the right to use force during a break-in. Otherwise, a person must show that his or her life was in danger.

Prosecutors say evidence shows McBride knocked on a locked screen door and did not try to force her way in. The interior front door was open, and Wafer fired through “the closed and locked screen door,” said prosecutor Kym Worthy, who declined to discuss details about the investigation.

“We do not believe he acted in lawful self-defense,” she added.

That’s a relief. If it had happened in a “stand your ground” state all the man would have to do is say “I’m afraid of teen-age black girls” and they wouldn’t have arrested him at all.

Meanwhile, here’s another one of your staunch defenders of the Second Amendment making his case:

Police in Wilkesboro, N.C., are currently looking for a man who accidentally fired his handgun during a Tuesday night discussion about 2nd Amendment rights in a GNC vitamin store, UPI.com reported.

The unknown suspect took out his gun to show it to an employee. At some point, he accidentally fired a round into the store printer, according to Dumb As A Blog.

After seeing what he had done, the alleged printer assailant told the store employee that “he could not go down for this” and immediately left the crime scene, WFMY-TV reported.

The suspect is described as a white male in his late 20s, weighing about 170 pounds, who is 5-feet, 8 inches, with brown hair and brown eyes. He fled the scene in an early 2000s model dark colored Honda Civic, MyFox8.com reported.

Luckily no one was killed.

I’m a big advocate for the Bill of Rights. And I’d be a lot more inclined to defend the Second Amendment as vociferously as the First if it weren’t for the fact that it’s basically only defending the rights of numbskulls like this and criminals. (Also too: the fact that gun rights advocates are now routinely using their weapons to silence and intimidate people who don’t agree with them, thus rendering the First Amendment moot.) The idea that it’s useful to repel potential government tyranny is laughable, needless to say, which is the primary principle on which those who believe the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right depends. And the carnage caused by accidental and unlawful use of these weapons is so out of control because of these yahoos that it’s infringing on everyone else’s right to … live.

I don’t know what to do about it. America is not evolved enough to allow us to fiddle with the Bill of Rights. The whole house of cards could come tumbling down unless we treat it as a sacred text handed down by God himself. But there needs to be some kind of rational approach to this violence and a way to get through to this gun culture. It’s killing way too many people. Innocent people. They need to lock their guns up, allow society to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people and start being responsible citizens. This is crazy.

.

The Obamacare “revolt” that isn’t

by David Atkins

The press is screaming with headlines that the vote by 39 Democrats to support the Upton bill constitutes some sort of anti-Obama “revolt”. That’s not, in fact, the case. There is no “revolt.”

Here’s what happened:

1) The President promised that people would be able to keep the healthcare they have. Nothing in the ACA at the time it was passed banned plans in effect at the time. In that sense, the President’s promise was going to be upheld as far as he knew.

2) Insurers then proceeded to sell a bunch of temporary plans that they knew would be subject to elimination under the ACA due to inadequate coverage. The Right then hyped up that people would “lose” those plans–even though only 3% of Americans are covered by them, even though they’re terrible plans, and even though they were only created after the ACA’s passage.

3) Rather than defending his stance and the validity of his promise by attacking the insurers themselves, the President proceeded to offer rationalizations and then an apology, and then a reversal of ground by stating that he would, in fact, tell insurers that they would be allowed to continue to sell those plans for at least another year.

4) In the Democratic-controlled Senate, Mary Landrieu offered a bill allowing insurers to continue to sell their existing plans for another year to customers who already have them while forcing insurers to inform customers of other offers through the exchanges. This jibed with what the President seems to want as well.

5) In the Republican House, the Landrieu bill had no chance of coming to the floor. Instead, House Dems were faced with an up-or-down vote on the Upton bill, which allows insurers to sell the cheap garbage plans not only to existing customers but new customers as well, without informing customers of exchange alternatives. Upton’s bill is much worse than Landrieu’s, but House Democrats’ only alternative was to vote for no fix at all, and thus position themselves as refusing to fulfill the “keep your insurance” promise even though the President himself had reversed ground.

6) Happily, the Upton bill stood no chance of passage in the Senate, or of being signed by the President. The President can make the fix through Executive power alone, so if anything crosses his desk for signature, it will look far more like Landrieu than Upton regardless.

7) Given the impossibility of that vote, Democratic House leadership released the most endangered Democrats to vote for the Upton bill, knowing full well that the vote would protect them from the worst Republican demagoguing, while shoring up the President’s own misguided desire to fulfill his promise and causing no real ill effects in terms of final policy.

Does that sound like a “revolt”? No, it doesn’t. It’s actually pretty basic, boring politics. But to the breathless, sensationalist and nuance-free press, it’s red meat aplenty with which to deceive readers about “divided Democrats.”

.

Oh good. Freedom of the press is sort of, for the moment, maybe, safe

by digby

This is really a question?

Holder indicated that the Justice Department is not planning to prosecute former Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, one of the journalists who received documents from Snowden and has written a series of stories based on the leaked material. Greenwald, an American citizen who lives in Brazil, has said he is reluctant to come to the U.S. because he fears detention and possible prosecution.

“Unless information that has not come to my attention is presented to me, what I have indicated in my testimony before Congress is that any journalist who’s engaged in true journalistic activities is not going to be prosecuted by this Justice Department,” Holder said.

“I certainly don’t agree with what Greenwald has done,” Holder said. “In some ways, he blurs the line between advocate and journalist. But on the basis of what I know now, I’m not sure there is a basis for prosecution of Greenwald.”

That’s big of him. I wonder if he thinks Lara Logan blurs the line between advocate and journalist? Or Brit Hume? Or Melissa Harris Perry? Or Rachel Maddow?

I’m pretty sure that’s advocacy.

I don’t happen to think any of those people I mentioned have broken any rules by being advocates and journalists. But I wonder if the Attorney General agrees.

Glenn responded to the generous announcement by the Attorney General that the first Amendment still exists:

“That this question is even on people’s minds is a rather grim reflection of the Obama administration’s record on press freedoms,” he said in an e-mail. “It is a positive step that the Attorney General expressly recognizes that journalism is not and should not be a crime in the United States, but given this administration’s poor record on press freedoms, I’ll consult with my counsel on whether one can or should rely on such caveat-riddled oral assertions about the government’s intentions.”

Yeah, until the Attorney General is more than simply “not sure” there is a basis for prosecuting someone for committing journalism, I think I’d err on the side of caution.

I still can’t believe this even a question but just reading the authoritarian pronouncements of allegedly liberal journalists on this subject reminds me that my  faith in the bedrock American values of freedom of speech and the press was naive in the extreme.

Oh and by the way, those same allegedly liberal journalists should, but probably own’t, thank Snowden and the journalists who published his files for the fact that the DOJ is now going to do something it should have been doing all along:

The disclosure about the review of criminal cases comes just weeks after the Justice Department informed a suspect for the first time that it intends to use evidence against him gathered through the government’s warrantless surveillance program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The Justice Department notifications are likely to lead to a constitutional challenge to surveillance law, which allows the interception of electronic communication between foreign targets and people in the United States. The Supreme Court had previously declined to hear a challenge to the law because litigants could not prove they had been monitored.

Holder said he did not know how many cases are involved, but he said the notifications will come on a rolling basis as Justice Department officials find the information.

The notifications could, in some instances, involve cases where defendants have already been convicted and are in prison. In those matters, defense attorneys may try to reopen the cases.

For the first time last month, the Justice Department informed a terrorism suspect in Colorado that it intends to use “information obtained or derived from acquisition of foreign intelligence information conducted pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”

The notification came in the case against Jamshid Muhtorov, a refu­gee from Uzbekistan who lives in Aurora, Colo. He was charged in 2012 with providing material aid to the Islamic Jihad Union, and he and another man were suspected of trying to participate in a terrorist attack planned by the group.

That first notification came after a vigorous internal debate last summer between lawyers in the National Security Division and Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who argued that there was no legal basis for withholding disclosure, said an administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

The National Security Division lawyers had argued that it was not necessary to make the notifications unless the evidence derived from the wiretap or intercepted e-mail was introduced directly into the case, the official said. Eventually, Verrilli’s argument won out.

The conservative courts will probably just end up legalizing warrantless surveillance as the government tends to do with all these messy questions these days but at least we’ll have a little more transparency.
.

60 Minutes Exec Producer Jeff Fager assigns an underling to investigate Jeff Fager


by digby

Fergawdsakes:

Politico media reporter Dylan Byers reports that Al Ortiz, an executive producer at CBS News, will be “conducting the ‘journalistic review’ into the controversial ’60 Minutes’ report on Benghazi.” As Byers notes, this presents a problem for Ortiz and a potential conflict of interest for CBS News, as the executive producer of 60 Minutes, Jeff Fager, is also the chairman of CBS News and Ortiz’s boss.

Does everyone remember the huge production they made out of the stale, tabloid gossip story about George W. Bush’s draft dodging? Let’s just say they went the extra mile.

September 9, 2004: A CBS spokesperson responded to early right-wing allegation by insisting, “As is standard practice at CBS News, each of the documents broadcast on ’60 Minutes’ was thoroughly investigated by independent experts, and we are convinced of their authenticity.” The statement added that CBS reporters had verified the documents by talking to unidentified people who saw them “at the time they were written.”

September 9: “CBS News released a statement yesterday standing by its reporting, saying that each of the documents “was thoroughly vetted by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity.” The statement added that CBS reporters had verified the documents by talking to unidentified people who saw them “at the time they were written.”

September 10: CBS released another statement: “CBS released another statement: “This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian…. In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content. Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned. We have complete confidence in our reporting and will continue to pursue the story.”

September 10: Rather’s rebuttal aired on The CBS Evening News.

September 11: The CBS Evening News aired an update about the memo controversy, which contained yet another statement from the network: “We believe the documents to be genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it.”

September 14: CBS Evening News again revisited the story, reporting that in a radio interview Laura Bush suggested the disputed Guard documents were “probably” forgeries, while noting “CBS News continues to stand by its reporting.”

September 20: CBS News chairman Andrew Heyward issued an apology: “Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret.” Dan Rather added, “If I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.”

September 20: CBS announced the creation of the review panel.

September 22. CBS announced Richard Thornburgh, who served as President George H.W. Bush’s attorney general, and Louis Boccardi, former executive editor and CEO of the Associated Press, would led the review panel.

Incredibly, it was later discovered that CBS officials were so spooked by the conservative attacks on the network in 2004, that when it came to assembling its “independent” panel the network did the following:

*Included Rush Limbaugh, Fox News chairman Roger Ailes and Matt Drudge on a list of possible review panel candidates.

* Conceded the list of panel candidates tilted towards the right in order to “open itself up to its harshest conservative critics and to ensure that the Panel’s findings would be found credible.”

*Reached out to “GOP folks” prior to assembling its “independent” panel and took their temperature on who should oversee the work.

*CBS insiders were concerned that former GOP senator Warren Rudman would not “mollify” the network’s right-wing critics; he was not selected for the “independent” panel.

Earlier this year in an interview with USA Today, CBS CEO Les Moonves reflected on his tenure at the network and singled out the Guard memo “mess” as among the most difficult situations he had to deal with. It “was extremely trying,” Moonves said. “We had to protect the integrity of CBS News, which had this great legacy, and I wanted to make sure we did it properly so that CBS News could thrive again, which I think they’ve done.”

That was about a story that was nearly 40 years old. There are current hearings and investigations going on about Benghazi, which just happened 2 years ago. And they’re blowing it off. As I wrote earlier, it’s clear that CBS has become a full blown right wing news outlet. Now we know.

If you feel like listening to a podcast while you’re on the treadmill or stuck in traffic or something I chatted about this story with Brad Friedman on KPFK yesterday.

.

Top dogs protect other top dogs

by digby

It’s not just a business and Wall Street thing. Here’s an example of a president protecting a former president — one whose record he ran against with a scathing indictment of lies and mismanagement:

If the U.S. gets its way, the world will never know the details of top-level discussions between George W. Bush and Tony Blair that paved the way for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

An exclusive report released Thursday by The Independent reveals that the White House and U.S. State Department have launched a fierce battle against the release of a four-year government-ordered investigation into the lead-up and aftermath of British participation in a war now widely viewed in the UK as a catastrophe.

The inquiry, led by Sir John Chilcot, is believed to take aim at the official version of events, including misrepresentation of Iraq intelligence, as well as questions about whether former British Prime Minister Tony Blair engaged in secret negotiations with the Bush administration while lying to the British people.

Yet, the U.S. government is forbidding the release of communications between Blair and Bush in the lead-up to the war, declaring it classified information and pressuring British Prime Minister David Cameron to wipe this information from the report.

The Independent reports that the hidden documents “are said to provide crucial evidence for already-written passages that are highly critical of the covert way in which Mr Blair committed British troops to the US-led invasion.”

The paper goes on to quote a top-level diplomat, who declared, “The US are highly possessive when documents relate to the presence of the President or anyone close to him… this is not Tony Blair’s or the UK Government’s property to disclose.”

There are signs that the British government is poised to cave to U.S. pressure, in a bid to protect the ‘special’ relationship between the two countries.

This really is ridiculous. If President Obama thinks that doing this will protect him from similar revelations when a Republican president takes over he’s delusional. They don’t play by the same rules as anyone who observed the Ken Starr Circus should understand.

Of course it’s always possible that President Obama is actually helping out his fellow austerian David Cameron who would like nothing more than to deep-six the whole report. After all, we do have a very cozy, special relationship with the UK. At least the two secret security states do.

.

.