Laura Rozen raises all the right questions about this Porter Goss snowjob. I too found it a bit hard to swallow that the reason he was forced out was because of his fierce loyalty to the CIA in his turf wars with Negroponte. His rep was just the opposite — he was a wrecking crew at langley. It’s possible that both could be true, but Rozen points out all the reasons for skepticism, and there are a lot of them:
So then he was forced out on very short notice? No notification to the House Intelligence committee? Not a single newspaper report in the past few months about the tension between Goss and Negroponte? (Indeed check out the recent coverage about Congressional raised eyebrows over the empire Negroponte is building, and his alleged visits to a fancy DC club for swim and cigar breaks). On the contrary, can anyone remember a single article about Goss fighting for his folks at the Agency?
I don’t. Much of the operative camp of the Agency perceived Goss as a political enforcer, someone who wasn’t just not looking out for them, but who almost leaned towards suspicion of them, someone who was rather passive and out of touch and who delegated day to day affairs to his staff, “the Gosslings,” led by the fiercely partisan Patrick Murray. I don’t believe I have ever heard from people in that world a sense that Goss was looking out for them or the Agency, and not seen a single article where anyone ever suggested that. The newspaper coverage has suggested rather that a lot of the experienced bench strength cadre at the Agency had left in fights with Goss and his staff during his rocky tenure, and that the Agency had never been more demoralized. So all that time, during all those departures, Goss was covertly fighting for his folks against the new intel reorganization? He was a misunderstood champion of the Agency?
Does something about this story line that Goss suddenly left because of his long-standing tension with Negroponte, his fraternity brother from Yale, over Goss fighting to hold CIA turf seem a bit canned to you?
Yeah. With botulism inside. I suspect this is Snow taking out his new toy for a spin — and the press corps, thrilled to give the Bush administration a 276th chance, have all piled in the back seat.
The limousine company run by a convicted felon who ferried the Dukestir to his poker games and inexplicably won 25 million dollars in Homeland Security Department contracts denies ever bringing hookers to the parties. That’s a relief.
Shirlington Limousine had financial troubles for years before winning two transportation contracts from the Department of Homeland Security in 2004 and 2005 worth $25 million. Department officials said that Baker’s company was not the low bidder on either contract, but that they were awarded for “best value,” based on Shirlington Limousine’s past performance and technical ability.
Homeland Security officials said they did not know that Shirlington Limousine lost a contract for shuttle bus service with Howard University in 2002 amid charges of poor service. Baker did not cite the university contract on his bid proposal, despite instructions to list recent contracts involving similar services.
If Homeland Security had known about the Howard contract or other previous financial problems of the company and its owner, officials said, Shirlington Limousine’s bidding score might have been lower — but not necessarily enough to give the contract to a competitor.
Officials said Baker’s criminal record, which includes numerous misdemeanors and two felony convictions, would not have affected the company’s bid. When the agency contracts with a company, officials said, they do not check the criminal backgrounds of its executives — nor do they run their names against the government’s terrorist watch list. In Shirlington Limousine’s case, only the drivers’ backgrounds were checked.
Clark Kent Ervin, the former inspector general for Homeland Security, said the vetting process was badly flawed because it left security gaps and failed to turn up readily available information about Shirlington Limousine’s finances and performance.
“At best,” he said, the agency was guilty of “really, really poor — textbook poor — due diligence.”
No kidding. I’m beginning to think Brownie was the cream of the crop.
This is the kind of thing that makes you very comfortable giving the executive branch unfettered power. Aside from the principles involved, they are just so good at the job of “pertektin’ the Amurikin people.”
It’s not online yet, but the Sunday New York Times Magazine has a long, and I mean very long, article detailing the rightwing’s attempt to limit access, if not entirely ban, contraception. Those of us who’ve been saying all along that the pro-coathanger crowd aren’t anti-abortion but anti-sex were, of course, right. The right is trying to start a discussion as to whether it is possible to be a Christian and use a condom – and not only if you’re Catholic, mind you. Tellingly, the White House won’t respond to the question as to whether or not George W. Bush believes in the use of contraception.
Me, I don’t think the article, at least as much as I’ve read of it, goes far enough. So-called “Christian” sex manuals go into considerable detail as to what intimate activities are permitted or not – to opposite-gender married couples only, naturally. Speaking about one rather popular leisure activity, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, “don’t recommend or advocate oral sex” but they can find nothing in the Bible that prevents a married couple from “enjoying” it. Actually, this is a bit of a dodge, because if you read what Tim LaHaye has to say elsewhere, it’s clear he finds oral sex disgusting. These clowns not only want to limit sex to state-approved coupling, but also dictate to the rest of us where we can put our lips, vulvas, penises, hands, asses, and breasts. And if we don’t do sex their way, we are immoral. They fervently hope, once again, we’ll be subject to arrest.
Oh, about the title of this post. I originally was going to call it “The war on sex,” but changed my mind because that simply isn’t accurate. It is fucking the rightwing opposes. The ecstatic, transgressive, transcendent, life-affirming, overwhelmingly selfish and also ego-obliterating ecstasy that is sex.
It is this the rightwing wants to deny us. And they can go to hell. Because what else could hell be but a place that bans fucking?
10 US soldiers died in a helicopter crash.We’re assured it wasn’t “the result of hostile fire.” Of course not. Otherwise, it might seem like Afghanistan is in just about the same disastrous shape as Iraq.
A British military helicopter crashed in the southern city of Basra on Saturday, and a crowd of Iraqis cheered and threw stones at British forces who raced to the scene to seal off the area.
Police Capt. Mushtaq Khazim said the helicopter crashed into a two-story house in a residential area of the city, apparently after being hit by a missile or a rocket. He said the four-member crew had died but that no Iraqis were hurt on the ground.
Is there any less appropriate place for religious proselytising and political campaigning than in the active duty military? It boggles my mind that this is going on:
The Air Force is investigating whether a two-star general violated military regulations by urging fellow Air Force Academy graduates to make campaign contributions to a Republican candidate for Congress in Colorado, Pentagon officials said yesterday.
Maj. Gen. Jack J. Catton Jr., who is on active duty at Langley Air Force Base, sent the fundraising appeal on Thursday from his official e-mail account to more than 200 fellow members of the academy’s class of 1976, many of whom are also on active duty.
“We are certainly in need of Christian men with integrity and military experience in Congress,” Catton wrote.
Defense Department rules prohibit active-duty officers from using their position to solicit campaign contributions or seek votes for a particular candidate. An Air Force spokesman said yesterday that “appropriate officials are inquiring into the facts surrounding these e-mails.”
[…]
Both Catton’s e-mail and an accompanying note from Rayburn portrayed him as a candidate who would represent the military and conservative Christians.
“The lack of any Air Force presence within the Congress was particularly telling over the last few years,” Rayburn wrote, referring to controversy over proselytizing at the Air Force Academy and new Air Force regulations on religious expression. “For those of us who are Christians, there is that whole other side of the coin that recognizes that we need more Christian influence in Congress.”
He defends himself by saying his only offense was sending the email from his work computer. Apparently, the substance of the thing was just fine.
Something has gone terribly wrong with the Air Force. This stuff keeps coming up over and over again. It’s apparently turned into a Christian Right organization openly affiliated with the Republican party — probably affiliated with Focus on the Family which is located in Colorado Springs as is the Air Force Academy.
It’s quite clear that the highest reaches of the Air Force simply do not understand that they cannot inflict their religious and political views on others. Their allegiance is to the constitution and the office of the president, not to a political party or their church. If they can’t understand that they need to find another line of work. This is ridiculous.
So the big kahuna they are talking about to replace Porter Goss is General Michael Hayden. Yes. That General Michael Hayden:
Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush’s pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush’s political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, “No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?” Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner. (Hayden National Press Club remarks, 1/23/06)
I’m disappointed I guess that perhaps the default response for some is to assume the worst. I’m trying to communicate to you that the people who are doing this, okay, go shopping in Glen Burnie and their kids play soccer in Laurel, and they know the law. They know American privacy better than the average American, and they’re dedicated to it. So I guess the message I’d ask you to take back to your communities is the same one I take back to mine. This is focused. It’s targeted. It’s very carefully done. You shouldn’t worry.
All those pesky laws are for bad people, you see. Good people don’t have to follow them. People like John “death squads” Negroponte, Hayden’s good friend and boss. You shouldn’t worry.
After Goss’s announcement yesterday, Foggo told colleagues that he will resign next week. Last week, the agency confirmed that Foggo attended private poker games with Wilkes at a Washington hotel.
Larry Johnson is saying the Dusty Foggo isn’t implicated in the hooker scandal citing a friend’s email with a lot of details about Dusty’s completely above board poker parties. It sounds like total horseshit to me. Here’s an excerpt:
It would not surprise me if Brent used the same rooms at the Watergate and Westin for subsidized Congressional encounters with hookers, but I don’t know this to be the case. If Brent did, I doubt that he would’ve said anything to Dusty about it, because, for all of his judgmental shortcomings, Dusty has enough of a political antenna to realize that he shouldn’t be playing poker in the same room where Duke was availing himself of free hookers. As you probably know, Dusty is the type of guy who people either love or hate. In my experience, women who hate him do so because he is an unabashed chauvinist of the old school. Guys who hate him pretty much do so because they wish they had the moxie to get as much poontang as they think he is getting.
Right. A cigar chomping, poker obsessed chauvanist whom all his buddies assume is getting plenty of “poontang” wouldn’t go near any hookers provided by his good buddy Wilkes, the defense contractor. (Keep in mind that Foggo was the guy who was awarding contracts at the CIA before he was plucked from obscurity by Porter Goss and made the number three guy in the agency.)
Johnson says:
Dusty is an old friend of Brent Wilkes and there has been plenty of speculation and rumor suggesting that Dusty got his job because of Porter’s intervention. Not so says a friend. Dusty got the job thru the intervention of one of Porter’s senior aides, who pushed and got Dusty the job.
Poor Porter. Victimized by his overzealous staff, just like Tom DeLay. These powerful House Republicans are such trusting souls, aren’t they?
We will succeed in Iraq because Iraqis are determined to fight for their own freedom, and to write their own history. As Prime Minister Allawi said in his speech to Congress last September, “Ordinary Iraqis are anxious to shoulder all the security burdens of our country as quickly as possible.” That is the natural desire of an independent nation, and it is also the stated mission of our coalition in Iraq. The new political situation in Iraq opens a new phase of our work in that country.
At the recommendation of our commanders on the ground, and in consultation with the Iraqi government, we will increasingly focus our efforts on helping prepare more capable Iraqi security forces — forces with skilled officers and an effective command structure. As those forces become more self-reliant and take on greater security responsibilities, America and its coalition partners will increasingly be in a supporting role. In the end, Iraqis must be able to defend their own country — and we will help that proud, new nation secure its liberty.
It brings a tear to the eye, doesn’t it? And who says nobody is reporting the good news:
Human rights groups are particularly concerned that the Sadr and Badr militias, both Shia, have stepped up their attacks on the gay community after a string of religious rulings, since the US-led invasion, calling for the eradication of homosexuals.
Grand Ayatollah Sistani recently issued a fatwa on his website calling for the execution of gays in the “worst, most severe way”.
The powerful Badr militia acts as the military wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which counts Ayatollah Sistani as its spiritual leader. Another fatwa from the late and much revered Ayatollah Abul Qassim Khoei allows followers to kill gays “with a sword, or burn him alive, or tie his hands and feet and hurl him down from a high place”.
Mr Hili said: “According to our contacts in Baghdad, the Iraqi police have been heavily infiltrated by the Shia paramilitary Badr Corps.”
Mr Hili, whose Abu Nawas group has close links with clandestine gay activists inside Iraq, said US coalition forces are unwilling to try and tackle the rising tide of homophobic attacks. “They just don’t want to upset the Iraqi government by bringing up the taboo of homosexuality even though homophobic murders have intensified,” he said.
Yeah, well, it may be that “freedom is not this country’s gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world” but surely the Almighty didn’t intend for America to promote the Iraqi homosexual agenda — which includes being allowed to live.
The sadrists and the Ayatollahs are just doing God’s work as they see it. It’s really beautiful that America can take at least some credit for these faith based programs. I know it makes me very proud.
Glenn writes about the predictable smearing of Ray McGovern and notes:
Not only is a lopsided majority of Americans (like McGovern) against the war in Iraq, they also believe (like McGovern) that the Bush administration “intentionally misled” the country into war. The fringe, radical, discredited views on the war are not those expressed by McGovern, but are those expressed by Instapundit, LGF and company. And yet those same extremists continue to classify people who oppose the war as “radicals”and “leftists” because they apparently still believe — even in the face of all that evidence to the contrary — that it is their pro-war views which represent what mainstream Americans believe.
I disagree a little. They may not have internalized that reality, but I don’t think they would care even if they had. If that means they think the majority of Americans are Unamerican, no matter that it makes no sense, so be it.
It’s important, I think, to recognize that these people are not populists who hate the elites. They loathe and despise their fellow countrymen. By calling McGovern a moonbat, they are saying he is one of us — the loathsome liberal rank and file.
I did not weigh in yesterday on the all time nobel prize for wankerism, Richard Cohen’s masturbatory love letter to himself because well … I just can’t write about all the clubby DC insiders having hissy fits these days or I’d do nothing else. Greg Sargent did a great job of analyzing this battle between the blogosphere and the Smart People Who Are Authorized To Have Opinions. Peter Daou is also covering this brewing battle between the unwashed masses and their betters over at the Daou Report. And Robert Parry has written what I think is a valuable analysis of why the Colbert routine confused the poor little kewl kidz.
I do want to take this opportunity, however, to congratulate our first blogospheric graduate to full fledged membership in the kewl kidz club of America. It warms my heart to see one of our own making it big by trashing lefty bloggers in the pages of Joe Klein’s TIME magazine. Our own little Wonkette is all grown up:
The low point in the fake controversy over Stephen Colbert’s performance at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner came when Gawker — the cracked mirror by which much of the media views its navel — ran a poll to determine whether, in fact, Colbert’s routine was funny. The poll determined that Colbert was an American hero, which may or may not make him funny, but the fact of the poll’s existence sure is. Talk about the politicization of comedy. Next we’ll get focus groups and image consultants (“Those clown shoes need to be three inches longer if you want to bring in the soccer moms”) and Joe Klein will write a book about how no one does improv anymore.
The politicization of comedy. Think about that. If you don’t see why that is an amazing statement, especially coming from someone who made her name by being a political humorist (of sorts) then it would probably be best to click over to Jeff Goldstein for some delicious paste and peanut butter sandwiches.
The blogospheric debate — whining, really — about the mainstream media’s “silence” on Colbert rumbled into existence with a post by Peter Daou. Almost 18 whole hours after the performance, Daou determined that the shtick — or, as one commenter put it, “a work of staggering genius that could only be pulled off by a man with testicles the size of Alpha Centauri” — was being ignored by the mainstream media in order to “shield Bush from negative publicity.” Daou even intuited why they didn’t laugh: because they were shamed “when Colbert put them in their place.”
Blindly pulling out quotes from comment sections — done like a pro. She’s getting her MSM chops perfectly honed. It’s important to portray the left blogosphere as not only absurd tin-foil hatters, but humorless and dull as well, which isn’t easy.
For the record, at the time Daou wrote his piece, there was tons of coverage of the dinner all over the television. The club was howling with delight at the good natured president laughing at himself with that impersonator. (Muy caliente!)
None of them mentioned Colbert. They didn’t pan him, they didn’t chastize him. They disappeared him. And if it hadn’t been for the blogospheric reaction, his entire performance would have gone down the memory hole. Now, I find that interesting, don’t you?
I agree completely that the press corps didn’t laugh because they were being put in their place — by Colbert. Two years ago they could hardly contain themselves when the good natured president exposed the entire press corps as idiots with his “jokes” about the missing weapons of mass destruction. Being put in their place by George W. Bush is something they positively love:
The Texas reporter began to ask his question, “You talked about the need to maintain technological”
But Bush, acting like an excited party guest who couldn’t keep a funny comment inside, interrupted the reporter to deliver the punch line. “A little short on hair, but a fine lad. Yeah,” Bush said, provoking a new round of laughter at the reporter’s expense.
The young reporter paused and acknowledged meekly, “I am losing some hair.”
The reporter then soldiered on with a question about whether the administration would “go forward with the V-22” warplane, a question of particular interest to the economy of Fort Worth, Texas.
Bush, however, wasn’t through having fun with the young reporter, who “represents Fort Worth,” Bush noted, prompting another round of knowing laughter from the national press corps.
Laughing along while the president humiliates one of their own publicly. Now that’s funny.
Cox then says this:
Daou didn’t actually make any specific claims as to the comedic value of Colbert’s speech, though if he were aiming to write something that would make Saturday night’s entertainment funny by comparison, he certainly succeeded.
How droll. And Michael Moore is fat, too. Snap! (Cue the kewl kidz to convulse in manly snorts.) Junior would approve.
Daou was obviously not trying to be funny with his piece. (He didn’t mention ass-fucking even once.) But never let that interfere with an opportunity to insult a lefty blogger for being humorless.
And then there is the requisite pulling of the most hysterical comments you can find and using them as an example of how crazy the left wing bloggers really are. It turns out that Ana Marie’s husband Chris Lehman didn’t find Colbert funny and wrote that Colbert was “shrill and airless” on the Huffington Post garnering a vitriolic response from Colbert fans. I couldn’t find the examples Cox used to illustrate this, but no matter. The Colbert lovers were often rude and we know how delicate the DC kewl kid sorority is. (Note to Mr and Mrs Wonkette: don’t become sports writers. You want to see rabid fans…..)
She goes on to explain that the unwashed hordes didn’t get what they wanted — an admission from the whole wide world that Colbert was like, totally funny — so we began to make too much of its “boldness” instead. And that is just naive. We lefty bloggers are nothing if not silly schoolgirls who don’t know how the world really works:
Comedy can have a political point but it is not political action, and what Colbert said on the stage of the Washington Hilton — funny or not — means far less than what the ardent posters at ThankYouStephenColbert.org would like it to. While it may have shocked the President to hear someone talk so openly about his misdeeds in the setting of the correspondents dinner — joking about “the most powerful photo-ops in the world” and NSA wiretaps — I somehow doubt that Bush has never heard these criticisms before.
To laud Colbert for saying them seems to me, a card-carrying lefty, to be settling. Colbert’s defenders might aim for the same stinging criticisms to be issued not from the Hilton ballroom but from the dais in a Senate Judiciary committee hearing. And I wouldn’t really care if they were funny or not.
Whose being naive, Kaye?
I’m actually fairly sure that Bush hasn’t heard these things before. The man is not exactly tuned into the zeitgeist. So we’ll take what we can get. Bush isn’t ever going to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee — and the press hasn’t exactly pressed him on these matters over the last five years, have they?
Which is the point. It’s not about Bush or the Judiciary Committee. Who before has ever stood before the Washington press corps, assumed their sycophantic persona, and hoist them with their own petard? I can’t think of anyone.
Ana Marie Cox used to do that online, along with the rest of us uncouth bloggers who rose up in frustration and screamed that the Emperor and his scribbling coutiers were dancing in the streets stark raving naked. (It wasn’t a pretty sight, I might add.) Colbert took our message to them, in person, the other night and we celebrate it. That this witty pioneer of the blogosphere, who made her name deflating the pretentions of the insider club of thin-skinned mediawhores no longer identifies with that sentiment is a cautionary tale.