Haven't linked one of these Shorpy pictures in a while, so I thought this one would be appropriate:

Click here for the full size version. Best comment:

White House Military Director Dewey Tellum immediately apologized for the incident, and the German government has promised to cover the entire $88.95 cost of the promotional stunt.

Heh. Ya'll have a great weekend. I'll see ya on Monday.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:17 PM | Comments (58)
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

Well!

Anyone who said the Democrats couldn't solve every problem through cutesy re-namings wasn't giving them enough credit.

A key House Democrat on intelligence matters believes that Guantanamo Bay doesn't need to be closed, but rather, needs to be fixed.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he is planning legislation that would order the facility to be kept open, while assuring the world that torture and mistreatment of detainees has ended.

“What's needed at Guantanamo Bay is transparency and accountability,” Hastings said. “You go back and change the bad things and turn the page.”

Hastings said a colleague dubbed his plan “Guantanamo 2.0." Still in the draft stage, it would assure access to the prison by the United States's Western allies and watchdog groups like Amnesty International and the Red Cross. Add that to President Obama's decision to end "enhanced interrogation," and there isn't a need to close the detention facility, Hastings said.

Karl Rove keeps making that point that when Obama first weighed in on this, in 2007 I think, he said it was, quote unquote, "easy' to close Gitmo.

And in yesterday's speech? "Difficult," etc.

Our President, Mr. Wizard, Mensa Chapter President, was pretty stupid in claiming it was "easy" to resolve these issues, eh?

Again: Thank God we don't have Sarah Palin bumbling around the White House. She stupidly said things like "these are difficult issues" during the campaign, proving how dumb she was. She was stupidly, prematurely aware of the difficulties involved.

Obama brilliantly realized they were difficult at precisely the right genius moment, a year or two later.

That's really the sign of brilliance, you know. We should give credit for scientific discoveries not to the guys who thought of them first, but who thought of them second, third... six bazillionth... years after the initial discovery.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 11:38 AM | Comments (179)
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

Is this the change we voted for?

Although Bill Clinton earned a reputation as a deficit fighter, it's important to remember that, to a fair extent, his relatively fiscally responsible policies were forced upon him (IIRC; can't find link) by investment bankers, informing him through Bob Rubin that he needed to balance the books or face difficulties selling debt.

Clinton buckled to the pressure -- and the result was, well, generally copacetic.

Whether Obama will so buckle is a big question. My money's on an emphatic "No." "Transforming" America is his very highest priority, far higher than nits like keeping the nation fiscally solvent.

Besides, there's an easy solution to enormous deficits and borrowing -- enormous tax hikes on everyone except the poorest, which has been Obama's plan all along.

Posted by: Ace at 11:20 AM | Comments (71)
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

I've known about this for a while, but I can't vouch for it. It seems implausible, at least as it's described -- there must be some provision in the contract allowing for termination or something.

But, as Mark Steyn from The Corner linked it, I guess that's "cover."

I really want to get in touch with this guy and find out the whole story.

Here's the link. Before getting too bothered by it, keep in mind this letter doesn't really explain the contract involved nor how this was accomplished. The implication is that property was simply taken from one person and given to another by government thuggery; I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than that.

Posted by: Ace at 10:06 AM | Comments (124)
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Unlike Nancy Pelosi, he did the right thing: he took questions from the press and then resigned his position.

He also ran off to Mexico, which I'd like to see Pelosi do, too.

“To live with the uncertainty that at any moment he could be deported, I can’t live with that,” Lown said.

...

“In my mind, it came to the decision of if I pursue a promising political career or frankly sacrifice my humanity, and I felt I couldn’t make that sacrifice,” he said. “I had to give this situation an opportunity or I would regret it the rest of my life. I couldn’t serve San Angelo under those conditions.”

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 09:59 AM | Comments (66)
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

God love 'im. Ferociously on-message.

So will Obama fulfill his vow - announced amid great fanfare in an executive order on day two of his presidency - to close the facility by January 2010? "I think so," Biden responded, according to Newsweek's Holly Bailey.

So perhaps he will. Or perhaps not. We'll see.

Biden continued: "But, look, what the president said is that this is going to be hard. It's like opening Pandora's Box. We don't know what's inside the box."

He also said that "to the best of my knowledge" the number of prisoners "who are a real danger who are not able to returned or tried" has "not been established" by the Obama administration.

So he basically just confirmed his predecessor Dick Cheney's analysis that the decision was taken "with little deliberation, and no plan".

Krauthammer is worth reading, too, as usual:

What does it all mean? Democratic hypocrisy and demagoguery? Sure, but in Washington, opportunism and cynicism are hardly news.

There is something much larger at play -- an undeniable, irresistible national interest that, in the end, beyond the cheap politics, asserts itself. The urgencies and necessities of the actual post-9/11 world, as opposed to the fanciful world of the opposition politician, present a rather narrow range of acceptable alternatives.

Among them: reviving the tradition of military tribunals, used historically by George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Winfield Scott, Abraham Lincoln, Arthur MacArthur and Franklin Roosevelt. And inventing Guantanamo -- accessible, secure, offshore and nicely symbolic (the tradition of island exile for those outside the pale of civilization is a venerable one) -- a quite brilliant choice for the placement of terrorists, some of whom, the Bush administration immediately understood, would have to be detained without trial in a war that could be endless.

The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over. When the new guys, brought to power by popular will, then adopt the policies of the old guys, a national consensus is forged and a new legitimacy established.

That's happening before our eyes. The Bush policies in the war on terror won't have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.

Maybe, but I'm very bothered by the left's and the media's (but I repeat myself) insistences that Democratic Presidents have much greater powers than Republican ones. Apparently Democrats can do all this without "shredding the Constitution."

Rich Lowry's also good on Obama's go-to bit of sleazy rhetoric: forever caricaturing the positions of those who disagree with him as "extreme" and somehow posturing as a common-sense centrist, despite his palpable extremism.

Thanks to EdwardR.

Posted by: Ace at 09:25 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

The decision comes down on Tuesday rather than the usual Monday because of the holiday. I have no idea how this news will impact rumors of contact between San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome and the Court.

The decision will be available at the Court's website at 10:00am PST, assuming it doesn't crash like Iowa's did last month.

My prediction is that the Court upholds the validity of the 14,000 lawfully performed gay marriages, but also upholds Prop 8, which means that there will be no more gay marriages in California.

Ace has predicted that the Court will knock down Prop 8.

Let's get a sense of the blog. How will the Court rule (not how you would rule, but how they will)? more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:52 AM | Comments (88)
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama denied, children cried!*

Consider it a little tough love and a lesson about the importance of punctuality from the World's Bestest Dad, Barack Obama.

Thursday was supposed to be the highlight of the year for more than 100 kindergarteners from Stafford County, Va. They got up early and took a chartered bus to the White House for a school field trip. But when they arrived, all the 5-year-olds got was a lesson in disappointment.

The buses from Conway Elementary arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue a little later than planned, and they were locked out.

"We were going to the White House, but we couldnÂ’t get in so I felt sad," 5-year-old Cameron Stine said.

...Paty Stine said the White House staff should have made an exception. She feels the kindergarteners were snubbed for the Steelers.

"Here we have President Obama and his administration saying, 'Here we are for the common, middle class people,' and here he is not letting 150 5- and 6-year-olds into the White House because heÂ’s throwing a lunch for a bunch of grown millionaires," Stine said.

Priorities.

There's really only one conclusion to draw...Obama hates children.

In all seriousness, this isn't the White House's fault. It's a busy place and saying "we got stuck in traffic" doesn't cut it. It's DC for God's sake. If you are organizing the trip you plan for traffic, if you don't it's your fault the kids didn't get in. Seriously, I loathe people who think the world revolves around them. Thinking the White House has to rearrange its schedule to accommodate people who can't figure out to leave an extra 10 minutes in the their schedule is a level of arrogance usually reserved for, well Obama.

No doubt the White House will reschedule the tour and there'll be a surprise drop in by the President (or if they are really lucky Michelle!). Never forget that in 21st Century America, whining to the press and blaming someone else for your fuck up gets results.

*Thanks to Dave in Texas whose protest rhyming skilz bring into question his sexual orientation and political outlook.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:27 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

Colleges and universities typically offer meeting space and other benefits to on-campus student clubs so long as the clubs register and abide by rules set by the university (typically nondiscrimination guidelines). Last October, Liberty University--the largest evangelical Christian university in the world--recognized the LU Democratic Club. It was like College Republicans for idiots and the illiterate.

However, last week, LU revoked the Democratic Club's recognition:

According to the e-mail, the club must stop using the universityÂ’s name, holding meetings on campus, or advertising events. Violators could incur one or more reprimands under the schoolÂ’s Liberty Way conduct code, and anyone who accumulates 30 reprimands is subject to expulsion.

Hine said late Thursday that the university could not sanction an official club that supported Democratic candidates.

“We are in no way attempting to stifle free speech.”

Hine said the university had recently completed a policy that would govern clubs and organizations on campus.

“We looked at each club and organization to determine where it stood and unfortunately this one kind of got in the sights of policy, if you will,” he said.

I gotta say, going to Liberty University as a Democrat and expecting to be welcomed seems like a pretty dumb move. And this sends a signal to any Lefty students considering attending LU: "You are not wanted here." Still, it's got national attention now, with Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe holding pressers on it.

LU can do what it wants with its meeting space. It's stupid and comes across as thugish, but it is a private university and the people crying about "free speech" need to reaquaint themselves with the actual text and purpose of the First Amendment.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:23 AM | Comments (64)
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Speaker Botox emerged today to trumpet the so-called "accomplishments" of the House since January and then stonewalled on the CIA issue.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she won't talk any more about her charge that the CIA lied in 2002 about using waterboarding on terrorism suspects.

"I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this," she told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comment."

But Republicans aren't letting this one slide.

Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, issued a statement after the news conference calling Pelosi a political liability to the Democratic party.

"Her obsession with the previous administration and her disdain for America's intelligence officials has reduced her to cheerleader status within the far left wing of her party and a distraction to the substantive debate over how to best move our economy forward," said Spain.

She brought some friends with her to this dog and pony show, inducing Steny Hoyer and some guy who is the Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus (he complained that his credit card limit had recently been lowered. Seriously).

Pelosi called on members of the press she could count on to be lapdogs. The fist question was on lobbying (an FNC producer said most of the members of the press groaned at that). The second question was on the CIA and the third and fourth were about energy and China. That was it.

Brave Lady Botox called on 2nd tier "reporters" and then bravely ran away.

In fairness, the FNC producer also said about 95% of the reporters wanted to talk about the CIA thing but she ignored them.

This is probably the best strategy for her as she's her own worst enemy here, what will all the different versions she offered so far. Right now it's just the GOP yelling about it (House Democrats killed an effort to investigate the matter).

Unless the CIA leaks something else, this might just burn out over the upcoming recess.

It's Her Best Play, and the Media Will Let Her Play It [ace]: She's lying. If that wasn't clear before, it's clear now.

Nancy Pelosi stands, now, as a presumed but unproven liar. Given this state of affairs, a truthful woman would want the truth to come out, to vindicate her.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't. This is, of course, because the truth is against her. So between the two possibilities -- having her honesty in doubt vs. having the truth come out -- she chooses the best for her.

Any lying politician of course would jump at the chance to have their lies assumed rather than proven. So long as there is a little bit of doubt, they come out ahead, or at least ahead of where they could (and should) be.

The media isn't supposed to allow lying politicians to happily exist in this state of doubt, of course. They're supposed to get at the truth, one way or the other. Supposedly a lot of the media wanted to ask questions about the CIA, but only one question was asked about it in the first four.

Oh, so she said she would only talk about health care, etc.? Why is the media respecting this demand? Do they routinely allow politicians drowning in scandal to stonewall?

Posted by: DrewM at 08:14 AM | Comments (66)
Post contains 589 words, total size 4 kb.