"Bad for growth. like your hair!" -bo

TechCrunch:

The world’s most powerful man went to Twitter to promote his plan to avoid the so-called ‘fiscal cliff‘ of impending tax hikes. If his style is any indication, the prez tweeted from Camp David while sipping an Arnold Palmer. So, make like your commander-in-chief, put your feet up, and check out some of the best moments of tax policy in 140 characters or less...

A noteworthing high point in the responses, and this exchange will be catalogued by the Library of Congress:

@dontbeaprat: @BarackObama #My2k As a recent college grad w/o a full time job, these cuts wouldn't help me, would they?

@whitehouse: @dontbeaprat cuts w/out revenue = reductions in student loans; work/study & college tax credits expire. Bad for growth. like your hair! -bo

Meanwhile, Dean Baker:

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican often cited on budget issues, is apparently badly confused about the basics of the budget. A Post piece quoted Graham as saying:

"This offer doesn’t remotely deal with entitlement reform in a way to save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from imminent bankruptcy."

This statement is absurd on its face. Medicaid is paid out of general revenue, it makes no more sense to say that Medicaid faces bankruptcy than to say that the Commerce Department faces bankruptcy.

And Krugman:

The key is having a health insurance system that can say no — no, we won’t pay premium prices for drugs that are little if any better, we won’t pay for medical procedures that yield little or no benefit

But even as Republicans demand “entitlement reform”, they are dead set against anything like that. Bargaining over drug prices? Horrors! The Independent Payment Advisory Board? Death panels! They refuse to contemplate using approaches that have worked around the world; the only solution they will countenance is the solution that has never worked anywhere, namely, converting Medicare into an underfunded voucher system.

But, but... deficits!

 

DADT and the Wall of Whoop

DADT has been studied more than cancer, but the data is finally in. A vast majority of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines said, “big whoop”. The Secretary of Defense and many senior commanders have said – as they have for quite some time – “big whoop”. And the public, which the Tea Baggers and Republicans claim gave them an overwhelmingly clear mandate to do whatever they wanted screamed, “big whoop!” The Republican caucus, a minority of military commanders, and most notably Lindsey “Rentboy” Graham and the world’s most petulant child, John McThuselah, have said, “Not so fast. There’ll be no whooping in my military.”

On this issue – come to think of it, on most issues – McCain has been a major pain in the tuchus. He whined because the 17 gazillion studies that have been done since DADT was enacted just weren’t thorough enough, if by thorough you mean agreed with him. He said he’d gladly go along with repeal once the troops on the ground said, “big whoop”. Not unexpectedly, when confronted by the troops’ Wall of Whoop, his response is, “Whaaaaaaaa! I don’t wanna!”

McCain: Formally Admiral Crybaby
How the hell did such a crybaby survive being a POW? “Wahhh! I want more gruel. Whaaaa! I’m hot, and cold, and hot. Whaaaa! You waterboarded me with a neti pot instead of a towel and bucket. What kind of enhanced interrogator are you?!”

Look, almost every military on Earth, except perhaps Pope Ratzzie’s Swiss Guard, accepts gay people. And like the old saw about masturbation (with apologies to Christine O’Donnell), those that think there are none already there are lying. So far as I know, there has never been a military failure attributable to sexual orientation unless you count drumming out qualified and critically needed translators at just the time we needed them most.

Way to fight the War of Error there Boehner Bitches.

There have been no instances of soldiers running out of the shower tent directly into the groping hands of a TSA agent because someone looked at their junk. Even little old ladies from Pasadena waited until someone took x-rays of their desiccated old vajayjays followed by the most embarrassing crotch grab in history to complain.

AAAAAHHHHH! Look, It’s a Dick
Are you saying that accidentally looking at an underwhelming, soap-lathered dick will cause a top notch military to take up arms and resist the legal orders of Congress and the President – who ought to stop pussyfooting (no pun intended) around and issue? If you do, are you not saying, “These colors never run!” but, “These colors will always run from a comrade they never even knew was gay before they were allowed to ask”? You’re not describing a world class military; you’re describing an extremely well-armed gaggle of unpatriotic, cowardly traitors.”

As a veteran, I for one am as insulted as those in uniform should be.

John Boy, Graham Cracker, Boehner Boys, Senate Leader Yertle, stop turning an issue with as much import to the country as your last 27 anti-flag burning amendments into a holy crusade that allows you to stomp your little wingtips and whine whenever the Democrats’ chiropractor accidentally finds a spine.

I believe you’ve been bragging about that massive mandate you got from the public. A public, BTW, that rates you several points below your craven Democratic colleagues and that sorry excuse for a President across the aisle. Quitcher bitchin’ and do as the vast majority of voters have commanded.

Your behavior is just so, um, gay (apologies to the LGBT community for the insult).

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

 

 

DADT and the Wall of Whoop

DADT has been studied more than cancer, but the data is finally in. A vast majority of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines said, “big whoop”. The Secretary of Defense and many senior commanders have said – as they have for quite some time – “big whoop”. And the public, which the Tea Baggers and Republicans claim gave them an overwhelmingly clear mandate to do whatever they wanted screamed, “big whoop!” The Republican caucus, a minority of military commanders, and most notably Lindsey “Rentboy” Graham and the world’s most petulant child, John McThuselah, have said, “Not so fast. There’ll be no whooping in my military.”

On this issue – come to think of it, on most issues – McCain has been a major pain in the tuchus. He whined because the 17 gazillion studies that have been done since DADT was enacted just weren’t thorough enough, if by thorough you mean agreed with him. He said he’d gladly go along with repeal once the troops on the ground said, “big whoop”. Not unexpectedly, when confronted by the troops’ Wall of Whoop, his response is, “Whaaaaaaaa! I don’t wanna!”

McCain: Formally Admiral Crybaby
How the hell did such a crybaby survive being a POW? “Wahhh! I want more gruel. Whaaaa! I’m hot, and cold, and hot. Whaaaa! You waterboarded me with a neti pot instead of a towel and bucket. What kind of enhanced interrogator are you?!”

Look, almost every military on Earth, except perhaps Pope Ratzzie’s Swiss Guard, accepts gay people. And like the old saw about masturbation (with apologies to Christine O’Donnell), those that think there are none already there are lying. So far as I know, there has never been a military failure attributable to sexual orientation unless you count drumming out qualified and critically needed translators at just the time we needed them most.

Way to fight the War of Error there Boehner Bitches.

There have been no instances of soldiers running out of the shower tent directly into the groping hands of a TSA agent because someone looked at their junk. Even little old ladies from Pasadena waited until someone took x-rays of their desiccated old vajayjays followed by the most embarrassing crotch grab in history to complain.

AAAAAHHHHH! Look, It’s a Dick
Are you saying that accidentally looking at an underwhelming, soap-lathered dick will cause a top notch military to take up arms and resist the legal orders of Congress and the President – who ought to stop pussyfooting (no pun intended) around and issue? If you do, are you not saying, “These colors never run!” but, “These colors will always run from a comrade they never even knew was gay before they were allowed to ask”? You’re not describing a world class military; you’re describing an extremely well-armed gaggle of unpatriotic, cowardly traitors.”

As a veteran, I for one am as insulted as those in uniform should be.

John Boy, Graham Cracker, Boehner Boys, Senate Leader Yertle, stop turning an issue with as much import to the country as your last 27 anti-flag burning amendments into a holy crusade that allows you to stomp your little wingtips and whine whenever the Democrats’ chiropractor accidentally finds a spine.

I believe you’ve been bragging about that massive mandate you got from the public. A public, BTW, that rates you several points below your craven Democratic colleagues and that sorry excuse for a President across the aisle. Quitcher bitchin’ and do as the vast majority of voters have commanded.

Your behavior is just so, um, gay (apologies to the LGBT community for the insult).

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

 

 

DADT and the Wall of Whoop

DADT has been studied more than cancer, but the data is finally in. A vast majority of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines said, “big whoop”. The Secretary of Defense and many senior commanders have said – as they have for quite some time – “big whoop”. And the public, which the Tea Baggers and Republicans claim gave them an overwhelmingly clear mandate to do whatever they wanted screamed, “big whoop!” The Republican caucus, a minority of military commanders, and most notably Lindsey “Rentboy” Graham and the world’s most petulant child, John McThuselah, have said, “Not so fast. There’ll be no whooping in my military.”

On this issue – come to think of it, on most issues – McCain has been a major pain in the tuchus. He whined because the 17 gazillion studies that have been done since DADT was enacted just weren’t thorough enough, if by thorough you mean agreed with him. He said he’d gladly go along with repeal once the troops on the ground said, “big whoop”. Not unexpectedly, when confronted by the troops’ Wall of Whoop, his response is, “Whaaaaaaaa! I don’t wanna!”

McCain: Formally Admiral Crybaby
How the hell did such a crybaby survive being a POW? “Wahhh! I want more gruel. Whaaaa! I’m hot, and cold, and hot. Whaaaa! You waterboarded me with a neti pot instead of a towel and bucket. What kind of enhanced interrogator are you?!”

Look, almost every military on Earth, except perhaps Pope Ratzzie’s Swiss Guard, accepts gay people. And like the old saw about masturbation (with apologies to Christine O’Donnell), those that think there are none already there are lying. So far as I know, there has never been a military failure attributable to sexual orientation unless you count drumming out qualified and critically needed translators at just the time we needed them most.

Way to fight the War of Error there Boehner Bitches.

There have been no instances of soldiers running out of the shower tent directly into the groping hands of a TSA agent because someone looked at their junk. Even little old ladies from Pasadena waited until someone took x-rays of their desiccated old vajayjays followed by the most embarrassing crotch grab in history to complain.

AAAAAHHHHH! Look, It’s a Dick
Are you saying that accidentally looking at an underwhelming, soap-lathered dick will cause a top notch military to take up arms and resist the legal orders of Congress and the President – who ought to stop pussyfooting (no pun intended) around and issue? If you do, are you not saying, “These colors never run!” but, “These colors will always run from a comrade they never even knew was gay before they were allowed to ask”? You’re not describing a world class military; you’re describing an extremely well-armed gaggle of unpatriotic, cowardly traitors.”

As a veteran, I for one am as insulted as those in uniform should be.

John Boy, Graham Cracker, Boehner Boys, Senate Leader Yertle, stop turning an issue with as much import to the country as your last 27 anti-flag burning amendments into a holy crusade that allows you to stomp your little wingtips and whine whenever the Democrats’ chiropractor accidentally finds a spine.

I believe you’ve been bragging about that massive mandate you got from the public. A public, BTW, that rates you several points below your craven Democratic colleagues and that sorry excuse for a President across the aisle. Quitcher bitchin’ and do as the vast majority of voters have commanded.

Your behavior is just so, um, gay (apologies to the LGBT community for the insult).

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

 

 

Graham Bill Plays Right Into al Qaeda's Hands

By Daphne Eviatar, Senior Associate, Law and Security.

Addressing the current threat from al Qaeda at a recent forum in New York, the Deputy Special Assistant to President Bush and former Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism warned that the United States' military reaction to the threat of terrorism is backfiring.

"We're in desperate need of disciplining our response," said Juan Zarate, speaking on a panel last week at New York University Law School's Center for Law and Security. "We have to have a sense of resilience. Every attack can't create a maximal response, because it feeds the enemy."

Too bad Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina wasn't there to hear him.

In Washington a week later, Graham was telling an audience at the American Enterprise Institute just the opposite. The U.S. needs to step up its military response to terrorism at home and abroad, he said. "The enemy has declared war on the United States. The question is, are we going to declare war on them?"

Graham lamented that the U.S. has given up its use of "enhanced interrogation techniques." And he vowed to introduce legislation that would ensure that suspected terrorists arrested in the United States don't get the same rights to defend themselves as do other suspects in the criminal justice system - such as mass murderers and rapists.

"This is not crime we are fighting," he said on the Senate floor later that day. "We are fighting a war."

In Graham's view, treating al Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers as criminals instead of warriors makes us weaker.

On its face, Graham's logic has a certain appeal. But national security experts increasingly warn that militarizing all aspects of the "war on terror" actually plays into the hands of al Qaeda and hurts, rather than helps, U.S. counter-terrorism efforts.

Senator Graham is now pushing legislation in Congress that would significantly expand the scope of the U.S. "war on terror." Among other things, he would require the U.S. to treat a suspected al Qaeda affiliate, whether arrested within the United States or abroad, as a war criminal who can be interrogated without Miranda rights and detained indefinitely without trial. A U.S. court later reviewing the detention could presume the imprisonment was lawful based on certain minimal evidence -- such as attendance at a Taliban or al Qaeda-affiliated training camp, even if decades earlier.

That sort of stark reaction to sporadic terror attacks is exactly what al Qaeda wants. According to Zarate, now a senior advisor to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, al Qaeda is intentionally goading the U.S. into overreacting to the terrorist threat; it can then recruit new members by characterizing the United States as fighting a world-wide war against Islam.

Al Qaeda wins even if its terrorist attacks fail, so long as it sees the U.S. reacting with alarm - allowing itself to be "terrorized."

Thus the failed Christmas Day bombing on a plane to Detroit last year, and the botched attempt to blow up a car in Times Square last Spring, were victories for al Qaeda because they sparked hysteria in the U.S., says Zarate -- mostly in the form of new bills in Congress, from Senator Graham and others, to deny suspected terrorists basic rights.

Another al Qaeda tactic is to entice the U.S. into over-committing itself militarily around the world. "They're baiting the U.S. into a regional quagmire," said Zarate, referring to the increasing drone warfare in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Similarly, al Qaeda wants to "economically bleed" the United States by taunting it into an endless global war, he said. In al Qaeda's view, that's the best way to bring down a superpower -- particularly during a recession.

For all of these reasons, it's important not to over-react to the terrorist threat. Making what should be a law enforcement matter into a military one, as Senator Graham and some other lawmakers are advocating, does just that. It's worth noting that the U.N. Security Council, in its reaction to the September 11 attacks, obliged member states to "criminalize" terrorist attacks - not to declare war on terrorists.

If the sort of tactics Graham is proposing were actually necessary to fighting terrorism, they might be worth the risk of aggrandizing al Qaeda. But they're not. There's no evidence that reading defendants their Miranda rights, for example, keeps them from cooperating with law enforcement and providing valuable information; on the contrary, studies show they're more likely to cooperate if told they have rights. Locking the wrong people up indefinitely hasn't helped either: although the Bush administration imprisoned more than 700 people at Guantanamo Bay, the terrorist threat has only expanded around the world. Military trials for terrorists have been a dismal failure as well: military commissions have convicted only four terrorists so far, while civilian federal courts have convicted more than 400 since September 11.

Lawmakers should keep this in mind when considering legislation that would militarize our response to terrorism and sideline the role of law enforcement. Other proposed bills would forbid the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States for trial or even to their home countries and strip terrorist suspects of their U.S. citizenship. These are just the sort of over-reactions that President Bush's terrorism advisor now warns against.

Unfortunately, such over-reactions also feed growing anti-Muslim sentiment within the U.S. "The grand success for bin Laden would be to see emerging in the U.S. a division between Muslim communities and the rest of the United States," observed Zarate last week.

As Fareed Zakaria wrote recently in the Washington Post, "Bin Laden knew he could never weaken America directly, even if he blew up a dozen buildings or ships. But he could provoke an overreaction by which America weakened itself."

Congress should be careful not to give him that satisfaction.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads