That must be the left's belief about Leon Panetta, who on one hand is being praised (and some praise is due him) for calling it right on bin Ladin, but, on the other hand, is being disbelieved as to whether waterboarded-information helped lead to the death of bin Ladin.

On one hand he's a genius and shows that all those Republican numbskulls who preceded him are just stupid dumbasses; on the other hand, he doesn't know the basic facts of the intelligence puzzle he put together.

Brian Williams: IÂ’d like to ask you about the sourcing on the intel that ultimately led to this successful attack. Can you confirm that it was as a result of waterboarding that we learned what we needed to learn to go after Bin Laden?

Leon Panetta: You know, Brian, in the intelligence business you work from a lot of sources of information, and that was true here. We had a multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to this situation. Clearly, some of it came from detainees and the interrogation of detainees, but we also had information from other sources as well. So itÂ’s a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got.

Williams: Turned around the other way, are you denying that waterboarding was in part among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission?

Panetta: No, I think some of the detainees clearly were — you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I’m also saying that the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question.

Williams: So, final point, one final time: enhanced interrogation techniques, which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years, that includes waterboarding.

Panetta: ThatÂ’s correct.

Video at the link; or should I say, doctored and misleadingly edited video at the link.

Only a liar or idiot can continue maintaining that no waterboarding produced useful -- critical -- information in light of that.

And speaking of Lawrence O'Donnell.

If you want some comedy that's not inadvertent and sad, try Frank J.'s reassurance that Osama was shot in the face in full compliance with Islamic tradition, or Iowahawk dryly noting that patriotism and love of country is no longer something to be ashamed of. At least for a couple of weeks.

And Speaking of Liars and Fools: Jay Carney in his press conference is claiming that no single piece of information was critical, and futhermore "we can never know" where information came from -- to avoid admitting the information came from waterboarding.

This last point is particularly a lie. It's not that "we can never know" -- it's that "they will never tell."

That's an entirely different matter. Obama simply refuses to acknowledge what his CIA head confirms, because his political position is wrong.

"I will never tell the truth" is not, in fact, the same as "we can never know the truth." Carney's insistence that they are the same notwithstanding.

Posted by: Ace at 11:48 AM | Comments (279)
Post contains 553 words, total size 4 kb.

I'd like to find an honest liberal to read but I've given up hope.

Here Washington Post blogger Ezra Kelin tries to show that the Ryan entitlement reform plan has not one but two "individual mandates".

Obvious question: Does the Republican budget have an individual mandate? Obvious answer: Of course not. Republicans think imposing a tax penalty on people who donÂ’t purchase health-care insurance is an unconstitutional assault on liberty.

Correct answer: It has two.

...HereÂ’s how the Ryan plan works: If youÂ’re an individual whoÂ’s not covered by Medicare, youÂ’re eligible for a tax credit up to $2,300 to purchase insurance. If you donÂ’t purchase insurance, you get nothing. So, in practice, thereÂ’s a $2,300 penalty for not purchasing insurance. In essence, youÂ’re giving the government $2,300, and you only get it back if you buy health-care insurance. ItÂ’s slightly more roundabout than an individual mandate, but itÂ’s the same idea.

His plan for Medicare is even closer to an individual mandate. There, everyone has to pay into the system through payroll taxes. When youÂ’re 65 years old, you get a voucher that will pay part of the cost of health-care insurance. If you decide not to use the voucher, or the voucher is insufficient, all the taxes you paid into the system are forfeit. Either you buy insurance as a senior, or you face a tremendous lifetime tax penalty.

You see! Republicans are hypocrites and love mandates! They have twice as many as ObamaCare.

Of course, this only works if you define "mandate" as "personal choice to take advantage of a tax break/incentive or not". Actually, now that I read that, that's pretty much the exact opposite of a mandate.

I wonder if Klein thinks there's a mandate to have children. After all if you do, the government will give you a $1,000 credit. If you pay income taxes but don't have children you don't get that $1,000 back and in Klein's world, that's a mandate.

Of course this is all nonsense. As Klein admits, the ObamaCare mandate REQUIRES you to either show you have health insurance or they will fine you 2.5% of your income or $700, whichever is greater. No choice, no options just a requirement (aka a Mandate).

This is part of the problem that Ace wrote about earlier. It's simply impossible to engage in an honest debate when liberals simply feel no obligation to be consistent or factual.

One party is serious about dealing with our existential financial threat and one, along with their enablers in the media, are simply trying to score cheap political points.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:59 AM | Comments (130)
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.

FROM CHUCK TODD:

CORRECTION: Incorrectly attributed quotes from House GOPer Mike Rogers to Pres. Obama. http://is.gd/eGSfe5

First, my apologies to the President.

Second, What the hell are you thinking Congressman Rogers? It's still an unbelievably stupid and insulting remark. A major apology from the Congressman and a primary challenge is in order.

Rogers is Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He should be the Former Chair of that important committee.

Here's Congressman Roger's webpage in case you want to let him know how you feel about anyone, Republican or Democrat, making such insulting statements about Americans in general and servicemen and women in particular.

As for our betters who say don't release the photos because it might inflame the Religion of Peace into a murderous rage (a state also known as "everyday")...everyone of you bastards better be on record either urging the withholding of or condemning the release of photos from Abu Ghraib.

Original and incorrect post below the fold. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 09:54 AM | Comments (462)
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

I don't know if this means the kill pictures and the respectful heroic funeral pictures won't be released.

The latter shouldn't be released.

If we see the latter but not the former, well. I don't know what to say about that.

Oh wait, yes I do.

Posted by: Ace at 09:27 AM | Comments (272)
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

Opposition rises from 27% to 34%, and that's not necessarily good, since the rest don't support it -- 40% have no opinion.

I've wanted to talk about this for a while.

The "Elite" class has many things in common. I want to focus on one thing they all have in common, whether on the left or the right: All persons deeming themselves "serious" about government policy recognize, and often agitate for, reforms (reductions) in Social Security and Medicare.

I can't stress this enough. Take any liberal who considers himself a serious pundit, fluent in math and wonkery, and, at least prior to the last few months, he will tell you that of course Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid need to be reformed.

This is as close as a self-selected credential as you can have: "Serious" people recognize this; if you wish to be considered "serious" rather than just some babbling partisan, you recognize the mathematics of inevitability, and simple actuarial projections, and see, and announce, that based on demographic trends (we're having fewer babies so there are fewer younger workers to support older retirees) the entire system, as it stands, is unsustainable, and doomed to bankruptcy.

And not a smooth bankruptcy, either, not a "gracefully degrading" sort of bankruptcy, but a jerky, one-day-comes-and-there's-no-money-left bankruptcy.

Until Obama made the decision that no other "serious" government policy intellectuals would or could ever make -- that is, to embrace the unserious position that nothing needed to be done and it would, somehow, just sort of fix itself through some sort of unknown magic to be announced later, no serious person would ever even consider embracing such an unserious, irresponsible, politically-pandering and know-nothing-jackass view of government finance.

But when Obama announced to his liberal coreligionists that he was going all-in on the demagogic do-nothing doom-and-bankruptcy unserious platform, suddenly they all changed their stripes within 48 hours and now deem Obama's non-plan to be worthy of consideration and a "serious" (in a way) response to the problem.

I cannot stress the fact that I cannot stress this fact enough. Prior to Obama's gutless bet on irresponsibility, you could not find more than ten liberals in a serious policy-analysis position, whether at NPR, or Slate, or The New Republic, or even the budget and policy experts of the Democratic Party, who would endorse the unserious, know-nothing, policy-illiterate position that some Magic To Be Announced Later would solve our entitlement problem.

Even Paul Krugman. Yes, there was a day, long ago, that your grandfather will tell you about if you ask, when Paul Krugman was (or posed as) a serious economists, and he wrote numerous columns about the shared "cowardice" of both parties in failing to be "serious" on this issue and failing to "talk straight to the American people" about the inescapable math -- that without reform, the system would collapse.

I have written about the Neutral Story Line. The Neutral Story Line (term coined by Mickey Kaus) is a story line which purports to be neutral, usually because it indicts both parties equally or is about some ostensibly non-partisan issue like campaign finance. (I have also noted that Neutral Story Lines only seem superficially to be neutral; but they are chosen for partisan reasons -- outsized donations from private donors is a Very Bad Thing when Bush does it, but suddenly when Obama does it, it becomes a testament to the vitality of American democracy.)

For thirty years running, we have seen one Neutral Story Line written over and over, by virtually ever serious policy wonk, whether on the left or right: Politicians need to stop pandering -- lying -- to the public and educate them about the real situation of our finances and explain to them that we face two undesirable outcomes -- reform or bankruptcy -- but the former is far preferable to the latter.

We have seen virtually every pundit at one time or another get on his high horse and castigate politicians from both parties for being cowards. We have seen virtually every pundit, right or left, indict American democracy as fundamentally dysfunctional because our political class, left and right, was unwilling or incapable of telling the American public the true facts of the situation, and enlisting their support in putting things right.

We have seen virtually ever broadcast news-reader tut, tut at one time or another about both parties' inability to actually act in the positive good of America.

But things have changed, haven't they? That was a Neutral Story Line beloved by the chattering class so long as it could be deployed against both parties; that is, as long as it did no harm to the Democrats.

The 2008 version of Obama explicitly ran on a platform of dealing straight with people and finally reforming entitlements. The media praised him for his courage in doing so, and made sure they always backed up his statements with their own commentary that what he was saying was true and wise.

But the 2011 version of Obama has repudiated the 2008 version of Obama. And it's the 2011 version of Obama that's important now, as that's the weak failure of a version which will be seeking re-election.

And so, just as dissent went from patriotic to treasonous the day Obama took the oath of office, suddenly a 30-plus-year-old agitation and consensus opinion conviction of the chattering classes has been repudiated as well. And suddenly Obama's position -- previously dismissed as demagogic and disastrous when anyone else embraced it -- is now not only serious, but preferable.

And meanwhile the people who are doing what the chattering classes have for decades demanded -- shooting straight with the public and giving them realistic, but painful, choices regarding their futures, so they can honestly and knowingly choose between reform and chaos, are actually now criticized by the media, instead of feted.

Why? Because the media always had it in mind that it would be the Democrats who finally became fiscal heroes and select the honest, serious choice of reform and honesty.

But it didn't turn out that way. It turned out to be the despised Republicans who chose reform and honesty, and the media's beloved Democrats who agitated against what all serious people know is necessary and wise.

And so, because Republicans are, as Gabe terms them, the "Designated Villains," and Democrats the "Designated Heroes," suddenly what was considered villainous (demagogy and pandering and irresponsibility) is credited as heroic, and what had once been heroic -- with the pundits on the right and left calling for since 1980 (or before) -- is now not only not heroic, not only not necessary or honest, but rather... villainous.

I wrote previously that we were in an odd position, regarding the Ryan plan-- bizarrely, and fatally, we were in the position of needing the media to show some consistency and continue saying the same things they said for 30 years before Obama. We actually needed them to tell the truth, as they saw it, and as they declared it, for thirty years.

If they did this, the public would be educated and understand that our choices are the Ryan plan (or something like it, like the Simpson-Bowles plan) or bankruptcy.

But when I said that, of course I suggested that the media would not remain true to their previous convictions, but would shed them instantaneously, pretending they had never before what they'd said and written 3000 times prior. Suddenly, I figured, what they had always deemed to be irresponsible and unserious would be elevated to the privileged position of Common Sense Moderate policy, and what they had long dreamed of and exulted as heroic and wise would be dismissed as "hurting grandma."

And that's precisely what's happened, of course.

The media likes to pretend it serves an important educational function -- curing the public of its misunderstandings -- but it will only do so in direct service of the Democratic Party.

If the public is starting to wonder about Obama's birth certificate, they'll devote up to 10% of all news time to repudiating that false belief. If the public thinks there's a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin, virtually every newscast will announce no such direct connection exists.

But if over half of all Democrats believe that Bush might have deliberately permitted 9/11 to happen so he could have a pretext for invading... Afghanistan? Oh, that they don't want to talk about. They won't note that both John Kerry and John Edwards, running as candidates in 2004, played footsie with and indulged Truthers to get votes, suggesting their was some merit to their claims.

And if the Democrats are suddenly taking a position the media smarties have long considered snake-oil? Will George Stephanopolous be interrogating every Democrat with actuarial projections as he interrogated every Republican about the birth certificate? Will CNN spend 10% of all available airtime repudiating the false belief that nothing much has to change with entitlements?

No. Suddenly the public is welcome to harbor their misunderstandings and foolishnesses, because such foolishnesses redound to the political advantage of the Democratic Media Party.

So go fuck yourself with your "education function," Media. The only sort of public education you engage in is "Vote Democrat, early and often."

Posted by: Ace at 08:18 AM | Comments (227)
Post contains 1562 words, total size 10 kb.

Mr. Truce on Social Issues is still not ready for primetime.

“I encouraged four different people to run,” [Gov. Daniels] says, and failed. (He wouldn’t name them but Haley Barbour appears to have been one of them.) At one point he used the words “if I talk myself into this” when discussing a run of his own. Why might he run? “I believe the country’s at a very perilous point arithmetically. And I haven’t yet—still hope to—seen anyone else step up to it. . . . So far my brethren have been a little hesitant.”

When asked if he was ready to debate President Obama on foreign policy, Daniels said "Probably not."

So he gets points for candor, I guess, but you know what would be better than a candidate with candor? A candidate who has candor AND is prepared to take on the President.

Daniels' default mode seems to be too deliberative, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. He held off commenting on the OBL operation for two days. He similarly doesn't care to venture opinions about Afghanistan or Libya.

Daniels said that “it cannot be illegitimate to ask” if some of the country’s military commitments should be unwound, but he has not yet reached any conclusions about which should be—or, at least, any he is willing to share. On Afghanistan he refuses to second-guess the decisions of the president, to whose greater access to information he defers. On Libya he says only that he has not seen the case for intervention made.

"Refuses to second-guess the President." Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer a candidate willing to stand up and say that President Obama is doing wrong, not just "arithmetically", but as a matter of policy. At some point, Daniels' forbearance will look less like caution and more like ignorance.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:14 AM | Comments (504)
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Watch your mouth kid, or you'll find yourself floating home.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:59 AM | Comments (172)
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

CIA Director Leon Panetta, who I'm referring to from now on as "Pushy Leon." (video below the fold)

The basic left/right narrative on waterboarding went something like this:

The left: "Waterboarding is torture, and we as Americans should not torture."

The right: "Waterboarding is not torture, blowtorches and pliers are torture. Dropping a brick on a big toe is torture. The subject is not in danger of being killed or harmed with waterboarding, but they are mightily freaked out (and we're not really bothered about that with lives at stake)."

The left: "Well, it is too torture. Also waterboarding doesnÂ’t work. It isnÂ’t effective. They tell you stuff you want to hear."

The right: "What they tell us and what they don't tell us is used to validate other sources and information. ItÂ’s very effective. As recent events have shown."

Nancy Pelosi: "The CIA lied to me about torture."

The left: "Leon Panetta was part of Dick CheneyÂ’s illegal death squads."

I might not have that timeline exactly right, but that's the gist of it anyway.

via Jim Treacher, who has the round up and Rumsfeld video too.
more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:50 PM | Comments (134)
Post contains 234 words, total size 3 kb.

Me tired tonight. Don't feel like using my words. So we watch videos.

The USNA Commandant's Impromptu Speech

That he gave the night Bin Laden's death was announced to a group of jubilant midshipmen who appeared at his house. The video keeps getting taken down, but I don't see what's objectionable about it other than the naked display of patriotic pride and enthusiam. (thanks to genghis)

(video moved below the fold due to page-loading issues - genghis) more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:08 PM | Comments (553)
Post contains 581 words, total size 5 kb.

And the Supreme Court, of course.

Yes, come on down, and sit mutely as as President Obama insults you repeatedly while controlling the microphone and camera.

Jammie Wearing Fool: For some reason, despite being in New York City lots of times for fundraising, Obama never thought to visit Ground Zero.

I guess he really just wants to help people "heal" or something.

Posted by: Ace at 05:24 PM | Comments (145)
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.