NextRightNando's blog

Sarah Palin brings her political career crashing down around her head.

The strain of maintaining the artificial reality that is current Republican thinking has claimed another victim.

What a shame.

I now have to pin my hopes on Michele Bachmann running for national office in 2012.

[Since Patrick has turned off the comments section on his entry, I'm responding to him here.]

Imagine that a Democratic Governor doing all this: going AWOL for six days, leaving the country without informing his staff or the Lt. Gov., having driven to the airport in a neighboring state in a state-owned vehicle, having travelled to a country where kidnap-for-hire is common and having NOT checked in with embassy, causing his staff to issue lies about his whereabouts, and then lying himself to a reporter who spotted him on his return to the airport.

He's toast even before you add in the parts about the sex and the possibility that he traveled on the taxpayer's dime.

In the past two days I've written about comments from General David Petraeus and Chairman of the Join Chiefs Admiral Mullen in which they support the closure of Guantanamo Bay and oppose the use of torture.

Today let's here from former COJCS General John Shalikashvili:

The Army Field Manual was the product of decades of experience - experience that had shown, among other things that such interrogation methods produce unreliable results and often impede further intelligence collection. Discounting the Manual's wisdom on this central point shows a disturbing disregard for the decades of hardwon knowledge of the professional American military. The United States' commitment to the Geneva Conventions - the laws of war - flows not only from field experience, but also from the moral principles on which this country was founded, and by which we all continue to be guided. We have learned first hand the value of adhering to the Geneva Conventions and practicing what we preach on the international stage.

Sean Hannity or General Shaliksahvili? You decide who knows more about how to keep our country and our troops safe.

For all of you who argue in favor of torture and against closing Gitmo - you can add General Petaeus to the list of those who disagree with you.

RFE/RL: As you know, General, the debate over Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques has become "Topic A" in Washington. In your view, does the closing of "Gitmo" and the abandonment of those techniques complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overall struggle against violent transnational extremist groups or does it help it?

Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help

I reported yesterday the fact that the Chairman of the Join Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, also supports closing Gitmo and not using torture.

Who knows more and is more honest about the challenges facing our nation and our troops - General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen, or the draft-dodging chicken hawks Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh?

Here is a question for everyone who is arguing against closing Guantanamo Bay and in favor of torture: do you know more about national security than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff?

Regarding Gitmo, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went on "This Week" and said:

Well, I've advocating for a long time now that it needs to be closed. President Obama made a decision very early after his Inauguration to do that by next January. And we're all working very hard to meet that deadline.

Well, the concern I've had about Guantanamo in these wars is it has been a symbol, and one which has been a recruiting symbol for those extremists and jihadists who would fight us. So and I think that centers -- you know, that's the heart of the concern for Guantanamo's continued existence, in which I spoke to a few years ago, the need to close it.

 Regarding torture, Admiral Mullen said this at a press briefing earlier this month:

• Q     Can I just ask you one very other quick question. Now that you, like the rest of the world, have seen the memos released on enhanced interrogation techniques under the Bush administration, and the world has seen the description of all of that, can I ask you, when you served under President Bush, were you aware of the details of enhanced interrogation techniques? And did you at that time or do you now believe that those -- now that they're in the public arena, do you believe that that is torture?
• ADM. MULLEN: I have not -- I had not seen those memorandums before. I was specifically aware of the requirements of the Army Field Manual and very focused on that and sort of bounding the problem with respect to what the military does, and that's my responsibility. And from that point at no time have I ever supported torture, and that has been very clear and remains. I'd leave it at that.
• Q     But my question is actually -- I'm sorry, but the question is -- because so many people, including Senator McCain, have expressed the concern that these techniques could be used someday against Americans captured on the battlefield, and I'm sure that that would be a worry. So, do you believe that the things described by the Bush administration are torture?
• ADM. MULLEN: I share Senator McCain's concern that these techniques could be used against us, and have for a considerable period of time. And I'd just leave it at that.

There you have it - the nation's top military man says that Guantanamo should be closed, ASAP, becasue it is a recruiting tool for our enemies; and he also says he is worried that our maltreatment of detainees is going to come back to bite us in the ass, and it will be American soldiers - not chickenhawk talking heads - who will be paying the price.

All of you who want to argue otherwise: what information are you privy to that makes your opinion more valid than his?

If Admiral Mullen told me to jump off a cliff, would I do it? No. If Admiral Mullen gave me his informed opinion about a key miliary matter, would I listen? Yes.

How about you?

A few days ago there was a blog on this site celebrating Sarah Palin. and her brave stance in rejecting stimulus funds.

Well, surprise, surprise - it was all just a show for the cameras - especially those from the lower 48. From today's Alaska Daily News:

Top Alaska legislators said Tuesday they're likely to accept at least most of the federal economic stimulus money that Gov. Sarah Palin did not. "I think at the end of the day we will end up taking most of the funds," said Anchorage Republican Rep. Mike Hawker, who is leading the House effort on the stimulus as co-chairman of the finance committee.

Palin announced last week she was not accepting $288 million of the $930.7 million that the state is due in the federal stimulus. Palin aides have said in the days since that the governor did not reject any money, leading some state legislators to charge the governor with backpedaling as a result of furor over the announcement.

Palin aides have said the past few days that the governor has been mischaracterized.

"The governor has not rejected any funds -- that I think was perhaps the interpretation and I know certainly in some of the coverage of the press event last week," Karen Rehfeld, the governor's budget director, told the House Finance Committee on Tuesday.

For the record: the statement issued by her own office said

Governor Palin Accepts Half of Stimulus Package Funds

and

Governor Palin is accepting just 55 percent of the available stimulus funds

so those who are now trying to argue that she didn't actually reject anything have an argument thinner than a tissue.

More brand damage for Republicans and conservatism.

big h/t to Patriot's Quill and Nate Silver:

If you had invested in the Dow on March 3 when Presenident Obama recommend buying stocks, you would have already seen an 11% return on your investment. And the NASDAQ is now at 1483, whereas it was 1484 on Inaguration Day.

And from all of you: crickets.

What lessons can we learn? On the one hand, we could say that since conservatives insisted that the drop in the stock market was Obama's fault, then its recovery must be to his credit.

On the other hand, some of you could have the courage to step up and say "well, no really, what was being said a few weeks ago was absolute rubbish."

Let's recap a few posts from earlier this month - these were just the one I could find quickly, and I made no attempt to find any of the numerous follow-up comments that blamed Obama for the collapse of their 401Ks. (when IS this site going to get a decent search function????)

Mick Stockinger 03/05

a no confidence vote by the financial markets.

ddemilo, 03/03

Obama says he won't base policy on the "gyrations" of the financial markets.

Fair statement, but it only proves Cramer's point: There is no gyration in the markets; it is a freefall collapse. Were that we were seeing gyrations! Two and three hundred point drops wouldn't be so troubling. But the decline, since the election and inauguration, has been steady and strong, especially after Obama policy pronoundements.

If capital is indeed on strike, and stays on strike, Obama's confident words this morning about a 2009 recovery ("I'm certain of it") will come back to haunt him, just as John McCain was quickly haunted by his statement that the fundamentals of our economy are sound. It will be no satisfaction to see, given the suffering that is being inflicted.

idaho conservative, 3/03

Obama's in trouble. If somebody doesn't start investing, if somebody doesn't start making money, and the time for making profits doesn't come in the next few years, America's recovery will come eventually. Obama just won't be the one to preside over it.

ironman 03/02

[The Dow] is poised to open below 7,000 today and few think we've seen the hard bottom quite yet. The Democratic Party had an opportunity to bring in a fresh legislative team to deal with this problem and we had an obligation to the public to force this to happen. The results are rather obvious. I won't belabor the deficiencies in Obama and Geithner's decisions to date; but if there was an opportunity to change market confidence; this opportunity was lost. And replacing the failed Congressional "leaders" would have played a huge role.  There is no confidence in the economy at present; and the erratic behavior of Dodd and Frank have made matters worse. And will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

I will close with a quote from Nate Silver:

Yes, this is a stupid way to look at the stock market (that's the whole point).

Our country is facing the most severe economic crisis in our nation's history.

What are the Congressional Republican's focusing on? Bringing down the Democrat's popularity numbers.

Quoting Greg Sargent:

GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry, a key player in helping craft the Republican message, has offered an unusually blunt description of the Republican strategy right now.McHenry’s description is buried in this new article from National Journal (sub. only):“We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. “Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint.”McHenry’s spokesperson, Brock McCleary, tells me his boss is standing by the quote.

Idiot. Prize idiot.

There were numerous posts on this site today hoping that the stock market and the economy could be pinned on Barack Obama.

Well, buried in the  NBC/WSJ Poll out today (link to PDF).

Question 17a. When you think about the current economic conditions, do you feel that this is a situation that Barack Obama has inherited or is this a situation his policies are mostly responsible for?

• He inherited it - 84%
• He is responsible for it - 8%

Question 17b (asked of people who said "inherited" in 17a): And how much time would you say that Barack Obama has before his policies are mostly responsible for the country's economic conditions?

• Responsible in less than six months - 2
• Responsible in six months to one year - 13
• Responsible in one to two years  - 25
• Responsible in two to three years - 18
• Responsible in more than three years - 23

Indicating how very tough it is going to be to pin the blame on Obama before the 2010 elections.

(I titled my post in homage to Matthew Gagnon's post from a few days ago.)

Jindal has now admitted that a key portion of his response speech was not true.

Here is what he said in his speech:

During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I’d never seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: ‘Well, I’m the Sheriff and if you don’t like it you can come and arrest me!’ I asked him: ‘Sheriff, what’s got you so mad?’  He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up ready to go - when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn’t go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration. I told him, ‘Sheriff, that’s ridiculous.’ And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: ‘Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him too!’ Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing people.

Problem is, through the magic of the internets, people where very quickly able to establish that Sheriff Lee's more contemperanous account of the events didn't agree with Jindal's. Specifically, Lee said he did not find out untill days later that there had been a bureaucratic hold-up. He said this in 2005 on "Larry King" (emphasis mine):

When I realized that we had a problem, I was the one that made the call in WWO (UNINTELLIGIBLE) radio if there was anybody with a boat to come to a place so that we can get the boats in the water because I was around when -- the other big hurricanes, and most of the rescue done early on were individual fisherman, recreational fisherman that had boats that went in the water. Those boats where not allowed to get into the water when they were needed and I just found out about seven days later one of the reason boats couldn't get in was they didn't have enough life preservers and some of them didn't have proof of insurance. And I'm sure that there's a FEMA regulation that says that. But when a storm of this magnitude hits, you through those regulations out the window and you do what you have to do and start saving lives.

And now Politico is reporting that a Jindal aide has come out and said:

the Louisiana governor didn't intend to imply that an anecdote about battling bureaucrats during Katrina directly involved the governor or took place during the heat of a fight to release rescue boats.

In other words, when he told that little story, he "didn't intend to imply" that it really happened.

And this guy was a Rhodes scholar??