Skip to content

Month: May 2014

Anyone Seen Miley Cyrus and Edward Snowden in the Same Room at the Same Time? by tristero

Anyone Seen Miley Cyrus and Edward Snowden in the Same Room at the Same Time? 

by tristero

Alessandra Stanley in the New York Times:

 I miss Barbara Walters already.

Brian Williams of NBC News did a good job of letting Edward J. Snowden say what he wanted to say. Someone a little nosier would surely have pressed the exiled National Security Agency leaker on what he held back.

Is he being followed? Where does he live? Is he alone? Is he learning Russian? Who pays his bills, and do Russian women consider him a catch? 

You gotta be fucking kidding me.

But wait, maybe what she wrote really is high snark ‘n sarcasm. Let’s read on:

Mr. Snowden spoke lucidly, without remorse or emotion, expressing himself politely and calmly, without an “um” or a “like.” He was so fluent it almost seemed acquired – like Eliza Doolittle, of whom Zoltan Karpathy said in “My Fair Lady, “Her English is too good, he said/which clearly indicates that she is foreign.” 

There was a tinge of superiority to his tone, telling Mr. Williams when his questions were “fair” and answering others as impersonally as possible. At the end, Mr. Williams finally addressed Mr. Snowden’s private life, asking what it was like to move from Hawaii to Moscow. “You know, it’s — it is — a major cultural gap,” Mr. Snowden said coolly, flicking his hand like a wine connoisseur evaluating a vintage. “ And it requires adjustment…”

He nevertheless was a far better ambassador for himself than Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who published his secrets and is a frequent spokesman for Mr. Snowden’s cause on television, where he mostly comes across as smug and unreasonable. Mr. Snowden, a high school dropout and a fugitive living in an authoritarian country, seems much more pleasant and even-keeled.

You gotta be fucking kidding me. My Fair Lady? Let’s take this real slow:

Snowden is not a celebrity – unless he really is Miley Cyrus, which I’ll go out on a limb here and say I think is pretty unlikely. Nor aside from his treatment at the hands of his government should Snowden be of much interest (except to family and friends) when compared to the incredible documents he revealed. Ditto Greenwald.

The NSA – that’s an incredible story. Let’s not forget it.

.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has been on a crusade about this case, casting it as an attack on free speech, stretching even the new elastic meaning of campaign finance laws to the limit. And until a couple of days ago, they and their allies were reveling in their recent victories in the courts. The investigation had been most recently turned on its head by a friend of the Koch brothers and a Federalist Society judge by the name of Rudolph Randa who halted the investigation, calling it a “partisan witch hunt.” The Wall Street Journal inanely trumpeted the headline: “Wisconsin Civil-Rights March” Score another one for free political speech. On Tuesday, Federal District Judge Rudolph Randa soundly rejected a motion to dismiss a federal civil-rights lawsuit against Wisconsin prosecutors who are investigating the political activities of conservative groups (but not liberals). And then they broke into a rousing rendition of “We shall overcome.” The affiliated big money right-wing groups like Club for Growth and American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity were undoubtedly very pleased at that outcome. And they were also undoubtedly very pleased with one Scott Walker who was standing up nicely to the pressure and getting their backs when they had so generously padded his campaign coffers. That’s how it’s supposed to work. And then the bottom fell out:

The WSJ opinion page is fit to be tied as Governor Walker tries to save himself

by digby

My Salon piece today is about the Wisconsin Great White Hope and his legal problems, which are tying him into a pretzel. I briefly recap the case if you need a refresher and then take up the latest:

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has been on a crusade about this case, casting it as an attack on free speech, stretching even the new elastic meaning of campaign finance laws to the limit. And until a couple of days ago, they and their allies were reveling in their recent victories in the courts. The investigation had been most recently turned on its head by a friend of the Koch brothers and a Federalist Society judge by the name of Rudolph Randa who halted the investigation, calling it a “partisan witch hunt.” The Wall Street Journal inanely trumpeted the headline: “Wisconsin Civil-Rights March”

Score another one for free political speech. On Tuesday, Federal District Judge Rudolph Randa soundly rejected a motion to dismiss a federal civil-rights lawsuit against Wisconsin prosecutors who are investigating the political activities of conservative groups (but not liberals).

And then they broke into a rousing rendition of “We shall overcome.” The affiliated big money right-wing groups like Club for Growth and American Crossroads and Americans for Prosperity were undoubtedly very pleased at that outcome. And they were also undoubtedly very pleased with one Scott Walker who was standing up nicely to the pressure and getting their backs when they had so generously padded his campaign coffers. That’s how it’s supposed to work. And then the bottom fell out:

Read on. Poor Scott’s in quite the bind. He’s either got to placate his big money donors or save himself…

.

Your daily Grayson

Your daily Grayson

by digby

Congressman Grayson does the work of legislating. In fact, he’s been called the most effective member of congress. I know that annoys some people, since he’s also a strong rhetorical progressive advocate. Here’s an amendment he got passed through a Republican congress today:

H.R. 4660 An amendment, offered by Mr. Grayson, to prohibit the use of funds to compel a journalist or a reporter to testify about information or sources that the journalist or reporter states in a motion to quash the subpoena that he has obtained as a journalist or reporter and that he regards as confidential.

It’s the little things, people. Congress has the power of the purse and this is how you use it.

.

The fact that the housing market is overinflated and broken dawns on some British officials, by @DavidOAtkins

The fact that the housing market is overinflated and broken dawns on some British officials

by David Atkins

The world is slowly waking up to what it has wrought in the housing market. Here’s the latest from Britain:

Rising house prices will see the British middle classes disappear within 30 years, leaving behind a tiny elite and a huge proletariat, a Government adviser has warned.

David Boyle, a fellow of the New Economics Foundation think tank, said that for many young people today owning their own home was a pipe dream.

Speaking at the Hay Festival in Wales, he envisaged a Britain made up of a “tiny elite and a huge sprawling proletariat” who have no chance of “clawing their way out of a hand-to-mouth existence”, The Telegraph reported.

Mr Boyle, who sits on the Liberal Democrats’ federal policy committee, predicted that the average house price by 2045 would stand at £1.2 million, meaning that only the fortunate few would be able to purchase property.

And he said that the traditional middle classes would have to work multiple jobs – with scarcely any leisure time – just to be able to pay rent.

“The really scary thing is if in the next 30 years house prices rise as much as they have done in the last 30 years then the average house in Britain will cost £1.2 million,” he said.

“We cheered the rise of property prices not realising that it would destroy, if not our own lives, but the lives of our children.

“The place where this is heading is a strange society with a tiny elite and a long struggling, straggling line which is the rest of us, a new proletariat, who will be in hock to Landlord PLC.

“We won’t own our own homes, we won’t be able to afford it.

Right now this guy is just another voice crying out in the wilderness. But there are more and more of them every day.

It’s almost as if quintupling the cost of housing and feeding the Wall Street machine to continue overinflating assets might be a bad idea for future generations. Apparently that didn’t actually occur to very many people until recently.

.

Get over it

Get over it

by digby

This is why Ailes is paying Howard Kurtz the big bucks:

My take is this: Let’s say Hillary’s people are right and that the press is petty, sensationalist, often unfair and sometimes mean to women? Deal with it. It’s like complaining about bad weather. Every candidate has to cope with an adversarial media, and Democrats usually get a break at least on social issues.

He left out the most important part of that quote. It’s supposed to be “deal with it, bitches“, amirite?

Women have to put up with being treated like second class citizens and endure specific, disgusting, demeaning sexist insults because that’s just how the world works. Hey, they get breaks in other ways — they’re hardly ever caught with their pants down in a whorehouse for instance. And they tend not to get stalked on twitter for showing off their boners. So, it’s not as if they aren’t cut plenty of slack.

Does everyone remember when Howard Kurtz insisted he wasn’t a right wing shill? Good times.

.

QOTD: Richard Clarke

QOTD: Richard Clarke

by digby

Sounds about right:

“I think things that they authorized probably fall within the area of war crimes. Whether that would be productive or not, I think, is a discussion we could all have. But we have established procedures now with the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where people who take actions as serving presidents or prime ministers of countries have been indicted and have been tried.

So the precedent is there to do that sort of thing. And I think we need to ask ourselves whether or not it would be useful to do that in the case of members of the Bush administration. It’s clear that things that the Bush administration did — in my mind, at least, it’s clear that some of the things they did were war crimes.”

.

2014 won’t be a replay of 2010, by @DavidOAtkins

2014 won’t be a replay of 2010

by David Atkins

The eye-opening graph of the day comes from Aaron Blake at the Washington Post:

Note the dramatic decline in the conservative advantage on issues, particularly economic ones, since 2010. Now, I’m a little curious as to how these questions are operationalized, since I have a difficult time believing that conservatives actually hold an advantage on social issues at all.

Still, even if there is some bias in the construction of the graph, there’s no questioning the marked trend in toward progressives since 2010. As Aaron notes:

hat’s now within the margin of error, and it comes just four years after they had a 17-point advantage.
They also lead by 21 points on economic issues — down from 36 points in 2010 and tied for the lowest advantage of this century.

As in 2010, the GOP is approaching a midterm in which it hopes to make huge gains. This chart suggests their underlying philosophy is hardly as strong an asset as it was back then. And indeed, it’s weaker than it has been at any point since Bill Clinton’s presidency.

The GOP’s shoddy brand is perhaps the Democrats’ best hope for limited losses in 2014. The waning advantages of the conservative ideology should help in that effort, too.

It also means that something is going on, culturally, to make economic progressivism far more attractive to the electorate at a rapid pace. Democratic politicians should take advantage of that.

.

Chicks need not apply

Chicks need not apply

by digby

This is why I’m still a bit skeptical that America is going to elect a woman as President:

What folks haven’t tuned into, though, is how polarizing a Clinton candidacy would be between men and women.

Witness the new Washington Post poll, which shows Clinton remains popular and would of course be a strong contender to keep the presidency in Democratic hands.
What it also shows, though, is that her candidacy could split the genders in a way we haven’t seen in decades — at the very least.

It’s a given in politics today that men will vote more Republican, while women will vote more Democratic. That has consistently been the case for a long, long time. But with Clinton at the top of the ticket, that pronounced split could turn into a chasm.
The Post poll shows that women say they would support Clinton by a striking 61-33 percent. Men, though, say they would back her by a far smaller count of 49-46 percent — within the margin of error. That’s a 25-point gap between Clinton’s margin among women and among men…

What’s perhaps most striking among the new numbers is that the difference lies almost completely among white voters. Non-white men and women are pretty similar when it comes to the former secretary of state, but while 58 percent of white women back Clinton, 54 percent of white men oppose her.

Many GOP women won’t vote for her in the end. And if the GOP can find someone to entice enough of the Democratic white bros over to them (Christie your comeback awaits) she could have a problem.

But the GOP field is so terrible that she will probably win anyway. And for the purposes of breaking the glass ceiling that would be good — until some woman smashes the damned thing into tiny shards, female leadership is not going to be seen as “normal” in American politics. At least not by a whole lot of men.

.

Dick Cheney’s Triumph

Dick Cheney’s Triumph

by digby

Conor Friedersdorf takes a look at the George Packer review of Greenwald’s book and (among other things) makes this point:

In this era, when you think of ideologues who verge on rejecting politics, take absolutist positions, and operate in a sealed-off environment, do you think of the ideology that gave birth to the Iraq War, torture, classified law, indefinite detention, kill lists, and secret warrantless wiretapping? Do you think of Dick Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo, John Brennan, and James Clapper? I do.

I do too. Most people I know do as well. Or at least they used to.

And if you watched the Frontline documentary “The United States of Secrets” you would know that the programs Edward Snowden revealed were all started and approved by Dick Cheney and David Addington. Here’s a little excerpt which takes up the story after a recap of what had happened in the 1970s when it was revealed that the NSA had been secretly spying on Americans:

NARRATOR: Caught and restricted by Congress, the domestic spying apparatus went dark for more than 20 years. It was against the law to turn the NSA on Americans.

RYAN LIZZA, The New Yorker: If you were an NSA analyst, this sort of legal regime was drilled into your head to the point where a lot of people said it’s made the rules too restrictive, and it’s hampered the NSA’s ability to detect terrorist plots.

NARRATOR: Some at the agency thought the NSA had been overly cautious and believed the 9/11 attacks could have been stopped.

EDWARD LOOMIS, NSA Cryptologist, 1964-01: I do believe it could have been prevented with revisions to the way we were permitted to operate before 9/11, revisions that I tried to get the general counsel to embrace and wouldn’t — and couldn’t. I tried to get them to make adjustments to how we were operating, how we were permitted to operate, and they wouldn’t do it! I felt this ever since it occurred, that over 3,000 people’s lives were lost. And it’s just a weight that I have been having trouble bearing! It’s— I’m sorry, I— [weeps]

NEWSCASTER: The toughest week for America since Japan bombed Pearl Harbor 60 years ago.

NARRATOR: All over Washington, there was a growing demand to stop the next attack.

ALBERTO GONZALES: We have to remember that, you know, we’d had— we had had terrorists living in this country for a number of months and we didn’t know about it. What else didn’t we know? And so there was a great deal of concern about the fact that— that we not only could not connect the dots, we could not collect the dots.

NARRATOR: At the CIA, director George Tenet was under pressure from the vice president.

JAMES BAMFORD, Author, The Shadow Factory: The director had a meeting with Vice President Cheney and his top aide, David Addington, and he was asked, “What can be done? What can be done that isn’t being done?”

DICK CHENEY, Vice president of the United States: 9/11 made necessary a shift of policy—

BARTON GELLMAN: Cheney says, in effect, to Tenet, “Make me a shopping list. Tell me what you want to do that we’re not letting you do yet.”

NARRATOR: Tenet, whose own agency was designing covert operations against al Qaeda, called General Hayden.

MICHAEL HAYDEN: George calls me and says, “Mike, any more you can do?” I said, “George, no, not within my authorities, not within my current authorities.” And he paused and said, “That’s not actually the question I asked you. Is there anything more you could do?” I said, “I’ll get back to you.”

NARRATOR: Hayden got the message. At NSA headquarters, he spread the word— “Take the gloves off. Bring me an aggressive plan.”

EDWARD LOOMIS, NSA Cryptologist, 1964-01 : And they asked me, “Is there anything that we had that could have prevented 9/11?”

NARRATOR: Loomis told them what he believed was necessary— begin monitoring foreign Internet traffic going through the United States.

ED LOOMIS: The U.S. Internet hubs handle so much of the worldwide Internet traffic. So I said, “Let us allow collection between U.S. and foreign, foreign to U.S. against the terrorism problem.”

NARRATOR: But others in the agency were proposing much more aggressive data collection.

PETER BAKER: What they proposed to do is create a whole new surveillance program without warrants, trapping all sorts of information, taking advantage of the fact that modern communication trunk lines tend to come through the United States.

BARTON GELLMAN: The idea of this program was you’re looking for unknown conspirators, and the way they devised to do that was to look at everybody.

NARRATOR: It was the outline of something Hayden could take to the vice president. He headed to Washington to propose the idea.

NEWSCASTER: —one of the worst days in American history—

NARRATOR: It would be his first meeting in the Oval Office.

NEWSCASTER: —economy as a whole. There was a massive sell-off on Wall Street today.

ANDREW CARD, White House Chief of Staff, 2001-06: Prior to 9/11, I don’t think I knew General Hayden. I probably knew his name. I doubt that the president knew his name.

JAMES BAMFORD: It’s a very big change for the director of NSA to suddenly have all this attention from senior officials in the White House, and so forth. And I’m sure it had a major impact on Hayden.

NARRATOR: The president had been briefed. He put his arm around General Hayden, called him his childhood nickname, “Mikey.”

MICHAEL HAYDEN: I walk in to see the president. It’s the president and the vice president in the room. Almost certainly, Condi was there as the national security adviser. Andy Card would have been there.

BARTON GELLMAN: Cheney suggests the question and George Bush asks it. “What would you like to do that you can’t already do that would help prevent another 9/11?”

NARRATOR: Hayden outlined “the program.” It would gather data on the phone calls and Internet traffic of hundreds of millions of Americans, then search it for suspicious connections. But he was worried about whether it was legal.

MICHAEL HAYDEN: And the first thing he says to me is, “Mike, I understand your concerns, but there are some things we’re going to have to do. And I think I have the authority to authorize you to do things that you’ve outlined.”

BARTON GELLMAN: The president says, “Go. I want you to go develop a program, come back to me. We’ve got the lawyers working on it. But you have my order, we’re going to do this.”

NARRATOR: Hayden left the White House knowing that “the program” was bound to be controversial.

MICHAEL HAYDEN: No president had authorized it prior to this time.

PETER BAKER: And Michael Hayden goes home after briefing the president and the vice president about his ideas for expanding surveillance and takes a walk with his wife.

MICHAEL HAYDEN: And she said, “What’s on your mind? I said, “Well, we’re going to go do something here.” And I didn’t get into any details. “We’re going to do something. One day, it’s going to be public. And when it gets public, it’s going to be very controversial. And the people doing it are going to be swept into this thing.” And she said, “Uh-huh. Is it the right thing to do?” “Yeah, I think so.” She said, “OK, we’ll deal with that when it comes.”

NARRATOR: On October 4th, in a secret signing with Cheney, the president Officially authorized “the program.”

BARTON GELLMAN: That order is written by David Addington, the vice president’s lawyer. It’s not written by the president’s lawyer. And this is not only unusual, but probably unique in the history of major U.S. intelligence operations, is written by the vice president’s lawyer and stored in his own safe.

NARRATOR: Addington worked out of a small office next to the White House in the old Executive Office building.

PETER BAKER: This order is one of the most closely kept secrets of the Bush/Cheney administration for four years. It’s kept so secret that many people involved in national security inside the White House and the government don’t know about it.

NARRATOR: Addington personally hand carried a copy of the secret document out to Fort Meade.


MICHAEL HAYDEN: He said, “I’m coming out. I’ll be there in about 30 minutes”— hand carried. This was very closely guarded that we were doing this. And he comes onto the campus at Fort Meade, up to the top deck, and hands me the order.

NARRATOR: Now General Hayden wanted the sign-off of his top lawyer, Robert Deitz.

ROBERT DEITZ, NSA General Counsel, 1998-06: I think he was concerned and wanted my view of whether this program was, was lawful. I spent a sleepless night pondering the legality of it. This was a very hard call. It was a very hard call.

BARTON GELLMAN: The NSA has a general counsel and about 100 lawyers. And they were told, “The president has signed it, it’s been certified as lawful, and once all the signatures are there, that’s it, we salute, we say, OK, it’s lawful. We’re going to go ahead.”

ROBERT DEITZ: In the intel world, if a president says to you, “I need this in order to keep the American people safe,” you need to try to figure out where that line is constitutionally and march right up to it.

NARRATOR: Two other NSA lawyers would also sign off on the program.

VITO POTENZA, NSA Dep. General Counsel, 1993-06: We came to the conclusion independently, but consistently, that there was no doubt in our mind that it was a legitimate use of the president’s Article 2 authority.

NARRATOR: General Hayden had heard exactly what he needed— Article 2, the president’s authority as commander-in-chief.

MICHAEL HAYDEN: I have my three good friends here, who’ve, you know, been my guardian angels of these things since I became director, saying, “This is good.”

NARRATOR: Now the massive collection of data could begin.

BARTON GELLMAN: Who’s e-mailing whom? Who’s texting whom? Who’s doing Skype calls with whom? They’re collecting a lot of information, a lot of content of phone calls. They’re actually recording the voices— not for all of our calls, but for a lot of U.S. telephone calls. And they were doing this under an authority that had never existed before.

The story continues to reveal that it was this program that caused the big Ashcroft-in-the-hospital scene. Half the DOJ, including the FBI director, were threatening to resign over the notion that the president had the authority to authorize this in secret. So what did they do? The went searching for a compliant FISA judge to authorize it so they could pretend that the 4th Amendment was being followed and they found one. Eventually, they ended up legalizing much of it through congress which might as well have been a bunch of kindergartners for how well they understood what they were doing. And still that wasn’t enough. The NSA continued to abuse the statutes, enlarge its capabilities and operate illegally, which is what Snowden’s documents have revealed.

And it wasn’t just Snowden and a bunch of ACLU gadflies who were concerned. As much as government stooges insist that Snowden could have just “gone through channels” keep in mind that in recent years even Senators Udall and Wyden and Heinrich all tried to raise the alarms around this and were unsuccessful.

Just as the other long held dreams of those neocons — like the invasion of Iraq —  were opportunistically rationalized by the 9/11 attacks, “The Program” was hatched in the offices of Dick Cheney and David Addington and approved at various stages by compliant lawyers and judges. They knew they could get away with doing this and they knew that once this power was given to the NSA it would be very, very difficult to take it back.

In fact, that’s one of the underappreciated legacies of the Bush administration — they went too far over and over again. And they paid a political price in the short run. But in the end, their policies became normalized to the point that they now have Democrats and liberal journalists defending them.

Cheney must be laughing himself silly. What a triumph.

Update: More on Addington from Dan Froomkin
.