TPMDC Morning Roundup
Rumsfeld Spokesman Denies Accusations Of Biblical Quotes In Iraq War Briefings
Keith Urbahn, the spokesman for former Sec. of Defense Don Rumsfeld, is strongly denying the GQ report that Rumsfeld approved Iraq War briefings for President George W. Bush that incorporated Biblical quotes. "Rumsfeld was fully aware that words and actions could be harmful and counterproductive to the war effort. It's safe to say that some of these cover slides could be considered in that category," Urbahn said. "The suggestion that Rumsfeld would have composed of, approved of, or personally shown the slides to President Bush is flat wrong. It did not happen."
Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will attend the first quarterly meeting of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, at 10 a.m. ET in the Roosevelt Room, focusing at this meeting on clean energy jobs. At 3 p.m. ET, he will participate in a credentialing ceremony for foreign ambassadors in the Oval Office. He will hold a bill signing at 4:30 p.m. in the East Room, signing the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act and the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. At 5:45 p.m. ET, he will call the crew of the Space Shuttle Atlantis. At 7:30 p.m. ET, the President and First Lady will host a bipartisan reception in the Blue Room for members of the House and their guests.
Biden's Day Ahead
Vice President Biden is spending the day in Belgrade, Serbia. He met with President Boris Tadic, and the two made a joint statement to the press at 6 a.m. ET. Biden will also be participating in a memorial ceremony for the late Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, meeting with Prime Minister Mirko Cvetkovic, meeting with Defense Minister Dragan Sutanovac, and attending a dinner hosted by President Tadic.
Iran Claims Successful Test Of Missile
Iranian President Mahmopud Ahmadinejad claims that his country has successfully test-fired a new missile with a 1,200-mile range, enough to reach a target in southeastern Europe -- or Israel. "Defense Minister (Mostafa Mohammad Najjar) has informed me that the Sajjil-2 missile, which has very advanced technology, was launched from Semnan and it landed precisely on the target," Ahmadinejad was quoted saying by state radio.
Senate To Formally Deny Funding To Obama On Closing Gitmo
The Senate is expected to vote today on an amendment by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK) to deny funding to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. The Senate will deny Obama the ability to follow through on his plan to close Gitmo until such time as the White House delivers a satisfactory policy for what to do with the detainees currently there.
NYT: U.S. Entering Into National Auto Policy; Industry Collaborating With Government On Fuel Efficiency
The New York Times says that with the auto bailouts and reorganizations, America is seemingly entering into a comprehensive national policy for the auto industry, a much-debated topic in previous decades that has both potential benefits and pitfalls. Meanwhile, the industry is behaving in a new way on fuel-efficiency standards, cooperating with the Obama Administration rather than fighting regulation.
Gun Advocates On Track For Big Win On Weapons In National Parks
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and other gun-rights advocates in Congress are poised for a major victory, after having added a provision to the credit-card reform bill to allow visitors at national parks to carry loaded and concealed weapons. President Obama will likely sign the credit-card bill into law, with this rider left intact.
| TOPICS: Auto Industry, Barack Obama, Guantanamo Bay, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Joe Biden, Tom Coburn
Josh
Matt
Eric
Forget Rumsfeld’s Covers, His Actual Intel Was ‘Old Testament’
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=7210
May 20, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is fair to require an exit strategy for closing Gitmo.
May 20, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. But such an "exit strategy" is blindingly obvious.
Pending trial, stick them in Fort Leavenworth, or another military maximum security prison. Or in a Federal Supermax, such as the kind that Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, and various Islamic terrorists already are or were in.
That's the purpose of Supermax prisons.
Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to frame it as if Obama is going to put them under house arrest in some poor schlub's basement apartment in downtown Podunk, and maybe make them promise to behave.
And Democrats in the Senate have just bent over backwards to validate this absurd Republican framing.
May 20, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the best place to put them is at Leavenworth pending trial. Leavenworth is in Kansas which is NOT a Democratic state and houses NO Democratic Senators and I doubt very many House of Representatives. As a result, the push back from Democrats will be lessened.
A Democratic Representative and Senator is more likely to vote for the funds to close Gitmo if they know that the prisoners are NOT going to their state or district.
The Kansas Senate race is no longer in play for the Democrats since Sebellius is part of the Obama administration.
May 20, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused about the Rumsfeld article. The CNN piece states:
So, does this mean he knew this stuff was being produced and he didn't shut it down? Or did he not even know it was going on which was implied in this quote:
And if it wasn't being produced for Bush, who was the primary audience?
May 20, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rumsfeld did not create the covers. He did not explicitly instruct that they be created (or feels reasonably certain the evidence he did will not come to light). He did not personally hand any of the reports in question directly to Bush (or again, doesn't feel it can be proven).
Standard evasive politispeak. Think "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" or "the United States does not torture". Interpret their words using the narrowest or most favorable meaning for the speaker. And if the speaker can reasonably expect that a lie will go undetected or at least unproven, there is a decent chance they will tell it.
May 20, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
How does a rider allowing concealed weapons in national parks get tacked on to a bill about credit card reform? Seems like an odd combination.
May 20, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like tacking gun rights provisions on the DC voting rights act?
May 20, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since we know that concealed weapons protects us all, then let's extend this policy and allow all nations to have nukes. Clearly, if we are all armed, then we will be safe, which is what the concealed weapons law is all about.
May 20, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or better yet, let's allow concealed weapons be brought into the Senate and House and Supreme Court.
What? No dice?? But I thought guns make us safer!
May 20, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I support that message!
And how about this? Why have chosen to disarm the flying public rather than arm them? Wouldn't we have prevented 9/11 if we were all handed guns at the gate rather than have our shampoo taken at the gate?
May 20, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point about making the world safer by letting other nations have nuclear weapons. But I think I'd stop short of letting illegal aliens go around carrying concealed nukes.
May 20, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait wait there's more! Lets start handing out nukes to other countries and not tell anyone who has 'em! That way nobody will attack anyone ever again 'cause nobody will know if they country they are attacking might have nukes. Unless of course the country doing the attacking is sure they have more and better nukes. Then the world goes *poof*. But wouldn't that be great?!?
It's prolly criminals who grow pot in National parks who are lobbying for this concealed weapons thing so they duck a federal gun charge when they get caught in their bunkers.
May 20, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! Exactly! Hidden WMD for ALL!
May 20, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
On second thought, that might not work. You see, with the policy of preemption, I'm going to have to shoot anyone I suspect of having a concealed weapon whom I also suspect is a "bad guy". I wouldn't want the smoking gun to have fired at me.
May 20, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reality is that the Democrats lost the gun battle and they know it (the same way that the Republicans lost the social security battle and they know it).
The fact that they know it is the reason why there are 59 Democratic Senators right now (many are members of the NRA) and the House of Representatives is very much in the Democrats' hands.
Dems have learned to pick their battles and they lost the gun battle but they WON the overall war (have the Presidency, the Senate, and the Congress).
IMO, there are battles that I am more concerned about with the biggest one being health care reform than the gun battle.
May 20, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
What good is having control of the government if you don't do good things with it? Every time we (progressives) cave in to another right wing idea we squander an opportunity to do the right thing. We have the power we just lack the will. Pussies.
May 20, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because for many Democrats who are pro-gun may think that IS the right move. I don't because I hate guns but that is the price Democrats have payed for having a big tent which includes pro-gun Democrats and pro-life Democrats.
May 20, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it difficult to imagine the majority of Americans supporting concealed hand guns in national parks or assault weapons on the streets. Or kicking Arab speaking linguists out of the military because of who they prefer to bunk with. Or letting people responsible for beating and drowning POWs to extract demonstrably false confessions supporting self serving political arguments off the hook.
The problem is that we have a two party system with both sides being largely controlled by corporate interests (Dems being more subtle about it) which leads to a lack of nuance and elections being decided by a handful of hot button issues. If the Dems don't start using their majority position to the advantage of those of us who gave it to them, I think it might be time to start looking for an alternative. If Republicans at 40 seats are still "too powerful" for Dems to get stuff done then I would prefer to be represented by a party in the extreme minority that actually tries.
May 20, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stiggs, I agree with you *in theory* on this, but what real chance does a 3rd party candidate have?
Yes, it worked in Minnesota in 1998 when Jesse "We shocked the world" Ventura beat Humbert Humbert Humphrey (caveat: my cat could have beat him) and Norm Coleman (no caveat needed) for the Minnesota governorship.
And yet, last year Michelle Bachmann won another 2 years in the House because a third party candidate took 10% of the vote away from the Dem candidate.
And Ralph Nader? Don't get me started.
"So it goes." -- Kurt Vonnegut
May 20, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Greens got instant runoff voting in Australia by running candidates in all of the liberal strongholds. The left wing party quickly concluded that a voting system that doesn't propagate a two party dynamic is in everyone's best interest. Now is as good a time as any to push that here.
As long as we treat our elections as a "lesser of two evils" decision, the best we can hope for is a lesser evil. As long as we blame those who stand up and say the Democratic party doesn't represent their beliefs for the failures of the party then the Dems will continue to make deals with the devil to expand their power.
Democracy only works if we hold our officials accountable and the two party system is far more about parties maintaining power than about allowing true democracy (or even a true republic). With the current public sentiment, I find it highly unlikely that there is anything third party candidates could do to unseat the Dems from power. However, a strong showing in 2010 could be just what we need to inspire some action and honesty on the part of our leaders.
In fact, some serious third party showings might help the Dems by forcing them to stay aligned with the desires of the voters and by letting the republicans and greens (or whoever) duke it out while they look serious and moderate.
May 20, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm OK with "serious" third party showings. But I posit that if the third party candidate in MN's 6th district does not make a serious dent in the polls by primary day in 2010, that that candidate's supporters vote for Michelle Bachmann's Dem opponent on election day. There's making a statement, and there's living with a nutcase casting votes for 2 years. As Woody Allen says in "My Speech to the Graduates," let us pray we have the wisdom to choose wisely.
May 20, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
But a large number of Americans *DO* believe that if a person is legally able to carry a gun in their state, they shouldn't become criminals by driving on a road that passes through a national park.
Progressives should have worked to make sure that there were some common sense provisions in there about discharging weapons (banned sport/target shooting completely) and doubled-down on poaching penalties. But it's pretty difficult to do that while pretending this is a public safety issue vis-a-vis road rage and potential massacres at Old Faithful.
Common sense regulations require bringing a certain level of common sense to the table.
May 20, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again the democrats prove that even though they have power they are still cowards and the lap dogs of the republican. The democrats still believe the party in power when we got attacked on 911 will keep us safe
May 20, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guns don't bother me so much, though I don't own any; it's Republicans with guns that worry me.
May 20, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do Democratic Senators not want to help in the war effort against Al Qaeda? Can you imagine a Senator denying FDR space to detain Nazi war criminals? Or Bush for that matter...
May 20, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is a concealed weapons amendment germaine to credit card reform? And how could the majority Dems allow that to happen?
Can someone explain that to me?
May 20, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like some Dems are finally starting to learn how to move forward with the gun issue. It's very easy (and cheap) to placate 2nd Amendment advocates, and it puts out political fires before they really flare up. The President hasn't much to lose by allowing people to carry weapons in parks, but he would face even more intransigent opposition if he moved to prevent it.
May 20, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is going to be an interesting era...all of these great things being done, but by the time they are all done people will be packing bazookas like ipods.
Although honestly this is one I don't really care much about. I think it makes a certain degree of sense to be able to protect yourself from bears and the like in national parks. They'll just have to work extra hard to make sure people aren't poaching or endangering others. They should make it the rule that guns can only be used as self defense, and not for any other purposes. I would rather be able to enjoy hiking in a national park without being afraid of a stray bullet injring/killing me.
May 20, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's just call the NRA out.
Pick a state, any state, and eliminate ALL arms laws. Rifles, pistols, big magazines, full auto, concealed or open carry. In church, school, on the job and in the state house.
Hell, let's even give 'em vehicle-mounted.
Go with the absolutist reading of 'not be infringed.'
Only condition is full search of all people and vehicles going out of the state. No cash'n'carry.
After the resulting carnage makes it to the front page of every paper and web site on the planet, we'll be able to settle this crap about ignoring the 'well-regulated' clause...
C'mon, NRA. I f'ing DARE YOU!
(And for those of you at college, trying this experiment and reporting the results is why it's called 'Political Science.')
May 20, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh ... I want it. I want it bad.
May I suggest Alaska?
May 20, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is, the type of person that wants to carry a concealed weapon without a permit is the type that would pull it out in say a traffic alteration. There probably won't be a lot more shootings in National Parks as a result of this but there will undoubtedly be more than there are now.
May 20, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You realize that this doesn't allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, right? I think it means that New York can impose stricter regulations on firearms (including national parks) than might be appropriate for Utah.
May 20, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. Rummy just didn't know which words those were.
Well, Obama doesn't really have to close Gitmo. He can transfer all the prisoners elsewhere on his own authority and leave Gitmo open but empty.
May 20, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aha. Simplicity itself.
May 20, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but we still have this problem of groveling cowards calling themselves Democrats. I mean, Jesus fucking Christ on a popsicle stick, how do we rid ourselves of these people?
May 20, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fatal shooting on National Mall in 3, 2, 1....
May 20, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody else think it's about time to start crushing Obama's balls? A little bit? I mean, how many of these shit sandwiches to we have to eat?
May 20, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink