Category: Politics

Can We Please Give Texas Back to Mexico

No Comments

The state of Texas has just sued the International Rescue Committee (IRC) in an attempt to prevent them from reuniting a Syrian refugee family in Dallas:

Texas has filed a lawsuit aiming to block Syrian refugees from settling in the Dallas area, in the latest salvo of an escalating row between the state, an aid group and the federal government.

Relatives of Faez and Shaza, who fled Syria for Jordan in 2013 and were settled this year in a Dallas suburb, are expected to arrive as early as Friday.

They are being helped by the Dallas branch of the New York-based International Rescue Committee (IRC), but Texas officials sent letters to IRC asking them to halt their assistance to the refugees. The humanitarian group issued a statement on Wednesday refusing to comply with instructions from Greg Abbott, Texas’s Republican governor, and Chris Traylor, the head of the state’s health agency.

In response, Texas’s health and human services commission filed a federal lawsuit against the IRC and the Obama administration this week that asks the court to stop the family from arriving in Texas in the next few days.

It accuses the defendants of potentially endangering public safety by failing to cooperate closely and share sufficient information about the background of the refugees.

This is just repulsive.

Cui Bono?

1 Comment

As Bear who Swims observes, it turns out that the latest “bipartisan” efforts to reform criminal justice have been hijacked by a Koch brothers attempt to make it next to impossible to prosecute white colar crimes:

For more than a year, a rare coalition of liberal groups and libertarian-minded conservatives has joined the Obama administration in pushing for the most significant liberalization of America’s criminal justice laws since the beginning of the drug war. That effort has had perhaps no ally more important than Koch Industries, the conglomerate owned by a pair of brothers who are well-known conservative billionaires. Now, as Congress works to turn those goals into legislation, that joint effort is facing its most significant test — over a House bill that Koch Industries says would make the criminal justice system fairer, but that the Justice Department says would make it significantly harder to prosecute corporate polluters, producers of tainted food and other white-collar criminals. The tension among the unlikely allies emerged over the last week as the House Judiciary Committee, with bipartisan support, approved a package of bills intended to simplify the criminal code and reduce unnecessarily severe sentences.

………

One of those bills — which has been supported by Koch Industries, libertarians and business groups — would make wholesale changes to certain federal criminal laws, requiring prosecutors to prove that suspects “knew, or had reason to believe, the conduct was unlawful,” and did not simply unknowingly violate the law.

Many laws already carry such a requirement — known as “mens rea” — but Congress left it out of many others, and libertarian groups say that has made it too easy to unknowingly violate obscure laws. Some environmentalists argue, however, that the real motive of Charles Koch, the philanthropist and the company chairman, in supporting the legislation is to block federal regulators from pursuing potential criminal actions against his family’s network of industrial and energy companies, a charge the company denies.

………


The proposed standard, Justice Department officials said, might have prevented guilty pleas in a variety of cases, such as the charges filed in 2013 against Jensen Farms of Colorado for failing to adequately clean cantaloupe, resulting in an outbreak of food-borne illness that was cited as a factor in at least 33 deaths. It also might have prevented the plea in the 2012 charges against the owner of a pharmacy who sold mislabeled, super-potent painkillers blamed in three deaths.

The same powers, officials said, have allowed the government to pursue charges against major corporations, like the 2011 conviction of Guidant, the giant medical device company, for failing to report safety problems with defibrillators, used to restart heartbeats.

………

Mark V. Holden, general counsel and senior vice president at Koch Industries, acknowledged in an interview this week that the company’s efforts to pursue revisions in federal criminal law were inspired in part by a criminal case filed 15 years ago against Koch Industries claiming that it covered up releases of hazardous air pollution at a Texas oil refinery. Those charges resulted in a guilty plea by the company and a $20 million penalty.

That case, Mr. Holden said, demonstrated that the Justice Department too often pursues criminal cases even when the accused had no criminal intent. The company itself discovered the problems and notified the authorities, he said, meaning the company did not knowingly violate the law.

Yeah, right.

Koch industries did nothing wrong.

If you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida for you.

I was wondering when the other shoe would drop.

I kind of figured that there would be a Republican turd in the punch bowl.

This is Not the Onion

No Comments

She Turned Me Into a Newt!

Former Republican nominee for US Senator Deleware, Christine O’Donnel, who in 2010 was forced to kick of her campaign by declaring that she was not a witch, is now calling an FEC lawsuit over her campaign finance management a “Witch Hunt”.

She needs to get this straight. Is she a witch, or isn’t she?

Former U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell said Friday that a Federal Election Commission lawsuit accusing her of improper campaign expenditures is a “witch hunt” and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

O’Donnell, who famously declared during the 2010 Senate race that she was not a witch, made the comment in a teleconference with the federal judge hearing the case.

O’Donnell also said she is having trouble hiring a local attorney, claiming that at least three lawyers she has talked to have received phone calls warning of “political backlash” if they represent her. She declined to identify them or provide further details, noting that an Associated Press reporter was listening to the teleconference.

Yes, I know that my characterization is neither fair nor accurate, but seriously, this is just too good, and too weird, to pass up.

That’s Gonna Leave a Mark

1 Comment

President Obama just called the Republican cowardice explosion over Syrian refugees a sign that they were afraid widows and orphans:

President Obama is lashing out at Republican politicians who oppose allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S., accusing them of being “scared of widows and orphans.”

Speaking to reporters Wednesday morning in the Philippines, Obama scoffed at attempts to block refugees following the Paris terror attacks as “political posturing” that “needs to stop.”

“Apparently they are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America,” Obama said of Republicans. “At first, they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of three year old orphans. That doesn’t seem so tough to me.”

Obama apparently directed his ire at New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who said Tuesday he opposes allowing people fleeing the conflict in Syria to resettle in the U.S., even “orphans under five.”

………
“We are not well served when, in response to a terrorist attack, we descend into fear and panic,” he said. “We don’t make good decisions if its based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks.”

What is going on with the refugees right now is cowardice, naked pants-soiling cowardice, and it’s nice to see Obama calling it out.

I Would Call Chuck Schumer a Schmuck, but a Schmuck has a Head

No Comments

The distinguished gentleman from New York just came out publicly against allowing Syrian refugees into the United States.

I’m sure that if he had been alive in 1939, he would have been comfortably playing Mahjong with friends while the passengers on the MS St. Louis were sent back to die at the hands of the Nazis:

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, on Tuesday said it may be necessary to halt the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States.

Republicans immediately seized on Schumer’s comment, which breaks with other Democrats who have argued against halting the program.

Schumer, however, declined to take the option off the table ahead of a special briefing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon on the process that is now used to vet refugees entering the United States.

“We’re waiting for the briefing tomorrow, a pause may be necessary. We’re going to look at it,” he said.

Schumer is widely expected to become leader of Senate Democrats in the next Congress, after Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) retires.

A spokeswoman for Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) highlighted Schumer’s statement as an example of “bipartisan concern” over refugees.

Centrist Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) signed a letter to President Obama Monday calling on him not to allow another Syrian refugee into the country unless federal authorities can guarantee with 100-percent assurance they are not connected to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Other Democrats have rejected freezing Obama’s plan to resettle at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the current fiscal year.

What a toxic combination of stupidity, cowardice, and evil.

His position is deeply wrong, and will be seized on by Islamist terrorists as a recruiting tool.

I wish that I was registered to vote in New York so that I could vote against him.

Human Sacrifice, Dogs and Cats Living Together… Mass Hysteria!

No Comments

In the realm of “Real end of the world stuff, Sarah Palin just showed some introspection, and assigned herself some blame.

It only took 7 years:

Former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said in an interview that aired Sunday that the question CBS anchor Katie Couric asked her about what publications she read to form her views on foreign policy was “fair,” but that she gave a “crappy” answer.

Couric’s infamous interview with the former Alaska governor grabbed headlines because of Palin’s lackluster responses.

Couric asked Palin about the newspapers and magazines she read to form her views on foreign policy.

Palin responded that she had a “great appreciation” for the media, but when Couric pressed her to name some of the publications she read, Palin said “all of ’em, any of ’em that have been in front of me over all these years.”

Palin later said she was “taken aback” by the question.

In the interview that aired Sunday, Palin said the question was “fair.”

“I had a crappy answer,” she said. “But it was a fair question.”

It’s rare to see any politician to have this level of self awareness and humility.

To see it from “Caribou Barbie” is mind boggling.

Another Right Wing Meme Slain by Facts

No Comments

It appears that everyone involved with the Paris attacks are European nationals, not refugees:

All of the attackers from Friday’s massacre in Paris so far have been identified as European Union nationals, according to a top EU official. The announcement further casts doubt on the validity of a Syrian passport found near the bodies of a slain attacker.

“Let me underline, the profile of the terrorists so far identified tells us this is an internal threat,” Federica Mogherini, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, said after a meeting with EU foreign ministers. “It is all EU citizens so far. This can change with the hours, but so far it is quite clear it is an issue of internal domestic security.”

Needless to say, the right wing pants wetting fear will continue unimpeded by the facts.

It Just Got Real in Spain

No Comments

The Catalan Assembly has voted to start the secession process in Spain:

Catalonia’s parliament passed a motion declaring the start of the process for breaking away from Spain, a move Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy says is illegal.

The resolution was approved by 72 votes to 63, Carme Forcadell, the president of the regional assembly said Monday after the debate in parliament. Rajoy said he’ll ask the Constitutional Court to block the decision in a televised statement after the vote.

“Today we are solemnly starting a new state, a Catalan state, a republic, a Catalan republic,” Raul Romeva, parliamentary leader of the main separatist group, told lawmakers during the debate. “This was our commitment during the electoral campaign.”

The regional parliament is pushing ahead with its bid for independence even though it is yet to elect a regional leader, after September’s election left the main separatist alliance led by acting president Artur Mas short of a majority. The anti-capitalist party CUP, which backed the separatist motion, opposes Mas’s candidacy because of his support for business and the reports of corruption within his party. The assembly is due to vote on the presidency later Monday.

I’m not sure if this is a real move toward secession, or if it is some sort posturing about the selection for a President, but in either case, this has a real possibility of getting really ugly really fast.

It might not go pear shaped, but I wouldn’t buy any real estate in Spain for the next few months.

F%$# Me, I Agree with Bill O’Reilly

No Comments

Over the weekend, George Will and Bill O’Reilley got into it over whether or not Reagan was show signs of Alzheimers in his first term, and whether his shooting by John Hinkley might have accelerated the progress of the condition.

Bill O’Reilly is right about this, and so does Charlie Pierce. (I just threw up in my mouth)

It’s a medical fact that trauma can accelerate the progress of dementia, and there are numerous accounts of of the Gipper checking out in his first term, his first debate performance against Walter Mondale being one.

​One of our top commenters suggested that my account Monday morning of the dust-up between George Effing Will and Bill O’Reilly was incomplete because I failed to mention the precise casus belli. The Top Commenter is absolutely correct, and my omission is all the more odd because it involves a personal tin drum that I’ve been pounding since I wrote my Alzheimer’s book in 2000. It also involves one of the most serious of all history’s Unspoken Truths. What set Will’s chilly blood aflame apparently was the fact that, in his book, Killing Reagan, O’Reilly pretty baldly states that Ronald Reagan was a symptomatic Alzheimer’s patient for most of his presidency, and that having been shot was trauma enough to start what AD researchers call a “cascade” of symptoms that accelerated the progress of his disease.

(As it happens, O’Reilly’s speculation is on solid scientific footing. Alzheimer’s researchers and caregivers have known for years that physical trauma can worsen the effects of the disease. Certainly, the recent  research into the connection between head trauma and dementia backs this up, and I remember a fascinating Japanese study at an Alzheimer’s research conference that I attended in Osaka that studied the effect of a massive earthquake in that country on Alzheimer’s patients in the affected regions. In almost all cases, the disease accelerated.)

I am not willing to go as far as O’Reilly apparently does, but I have believed—and written—for years that Reagan was a symptomatic AD patient at least throughout his entire second term. My initial concern in this regard arose in 1984, during Reagan’s first debate with Walter Mondale, when he plainly did not know where he was or what he was supposed to be doing. At the time, my father was beginning a slow slide into Alzheimer’s himself. I knew what I was looking at on TV—and so, I learned later, did Dr. Dennis Selkoe, a prominent AD researcher in Boston. Since then, accounts of Reagan’s curiously vacant episodes have popped up all over various historical accounts, and personal memoirs, of the Reagan presidency. In the latter case, everybody from Ollie North to Lawrence Walsh mentions at least one moment in which the person who was Ronald Reagan disappeared right before their eyes. In an interview in 1999 for this magazine, John McCain told me of his experience at a White House dinner, when Reagan lapsed into some middle space of his own.

Seriously, while I have no problem with disagreeing with George will, the fact that this involves me agreeing with Bill O’Reilly makes me feel a bit sick.

Jeremy Corbyn Goes There

No Comments

He just (rightly, IMNSHO) accused Britain’s Chief of the Defence Staff General Nicholas Houghton of attempting to meddle in civilian politics:

British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn accused the country’s armed forces chief on Sunday of taking sides in the hot button political issue of overhauling Britain’s nuclear weapons program.

Gen. Nicholas Houghton earlier on Remembrance Sunday, when Britain commemorates its war dead, said he was “worried” by Corbyn’s vow never to press the “nuclear button”.

Corbyn issued a statement expressing “serious concern” over Houghton’s statement, calling on Defence Secretary Michael Fallon to “take action.”

“It is a matter of serious concern that the chief of the defence staff has today intervened directly in issues of political dispute,” said Corbyn, who is opposed to a revamp of Britain’s nuclear weapons system, Trident.

“It is essential in a democracy that the military remains politically neutral at all times,” said the Labour leader.

Corbyn is right, of course, Houghton’s behavior is unacceptable in a democracy, particularly when juxtaposed with long time rumors of military preparations for a coup in 1974.

One hopes that Houghton will learn his lesson, and shut the f%$# up.

Canadian Defense Industry May See Immediate Benefit from F-35 Cancellation

No Comments

Specifically, Canada has two needs, to replace its tired F/A-18s. but it also needs to replace much of its navy, which is well past its “sell by date”.

It turns out that the money saved by cancelling the F-35 may well free up money to allow for new ships, which will have the effect of creating a net plus for the Canadian defense industry:

While Canadian firms stand to lose business with the country’s withdrawal from the F-35 program, its maritime industry is expecting a potential windfall from the change of direction in defense.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised to put more money into Canada’s ailing naval shipbuilding program, including any savings from selecting a cheaper alternative to the F-35 fighter jet. Maritime industry officials said that could mean more ships and more work.

Trudeau promised the shift in defense priorities during the recent federal election campaign. His government was elected Oct. 19 and took power Nov. 4.

The previous Conservative Party government had launched the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) in 2011. That outlined an ambitious CAN $30 billion plan (US $23 billion) to construct new vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard. NSPS would see construction of 28 major warships and 116 smaller vessels.

Conservative Party Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who was defeated by Trudeau, had earlier dismissed the Liberal promise to spend more money on shipbuilding as unnecessary, noting that his government originally put enough funding into NSPS.

But the shipbuilding strategy has been dogged by concerns from industry. Defense analysts, the Royal Canadian Navy and the country’s Auditor General Michael Ferguson have all warned there is likely not enough money to build all the needed vessels.

Before the Conservative Party government was defeated, Defence Minister Jason Kenney acknowledged that the NSPS plan, supposed to build up to 15 replacement ships for the Navy’s frigates and destroyers, might actually only finance 11 vessels.

Trudeau may very well have backed himself into a win-win scenario for canada.

Henry A. Wallace, The Danger of American Fascism

1 Comment

I just came across an OP/ED from 1944 by then Vice President Henry Wallace on the nature of Fascism, and what the face of American Fascism might look light:

  1. On returning from my trip to the West in February, I received a request from The New York Times to write a piece answering the following questions:
    1. What is a fascist?
    2. How many fascists have we?
    3. How dangerous are they?

  2. A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends. The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; or may be a culture, religion, or a political party.

  3. The perfect type of fascist throughout recent centuries has been the Prussian Junker, who developed such hatred for other races and such allegiance to a military clique as to make him willing at all times to engage in any degree of deceit and violence necessary to place his culture and race astride the world. In every big nation of the world are at least a few people who have the fascist temperament. Every Jew-baiter, every Catholic hater, is a fascist at heart. The hoodlums who have been desecrating churches, cathedrals and synagogues in some of our larger cities are ripe material for fascist leadership.

    4. ………

  4. If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. They are doing this even in those cases where they hope to have profitable connections with German chemical firms after the war ends. They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.

  5. American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery.

    6. ………

  6. The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy. They use isolationism as a slogan to conceal their own selfish imperialism. They cultivate hate and distrust of both Britain and Russia. They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

  7. Several leaders of industry in this country who have gained a new vision of the meaning of opportunity through co-operation with government have warned the public openly that there are some selfish groups in industry who are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage. We all know the part that the cartels played in bringing Hitler to power, and the rule the giant German trusts have played in Nazi conquests. Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself.

Wallace is generally consigned to the footnotes of history, except perhaps when it is noted that some of his staff were likely Soviet intelligence assets.

He does seem to have been rather prescient though.

H/t naked capitalism

Quote of the Day

No Comments

Sanders is a clear outlier in a generation that has forgotten what it means to be a public servant. The Times remarks upon his “grumpy demeanor.” But Bernie is grumpy because he’s thinking about vets who need surgeries, guest workers who’ve had their wages ripped off, kids without access to dentists or some other godforsaken problem that most of us normal people can care about for maybe a few minutes on a good day, but Bernie worries about more or less all the time.

I first met Bernie Sanders ten years ago, and I don’t believe there’s anything else he really thinks about. There’s no other endgame for him. He’s not looking for a book deal or a membership in a Martha’s Vineyard golf club or a cameo in a Guy Ritchie movie. This election isn’t a game to him; it’s not the awesomely repulsive dark joke it is to me and many others.

And the only reason this attention-averse, sometimes socially uncomfortable person is subjecting himself to this asinine process is because he genuinely believes the system is not beyond repair.

—Matt Taibbi, in a cogent, and remarkably invective free, analysis of Bernie Sanders.

I think that this also encapsulates what is so wrong with politics since Ronald Reagan.

Our misleadership class have bought into the idea that the system is irrevocably broken, and so they only pay lip service to fixing it.

WTF, Ohio?

No Comments

Worst mascot ever!

Only in Ohio could an initiative to legalize recreational marijuana be opposed by legalization activists because it’s purpose designed to benefit 10 politically connected entities seeking monopoly rents:

As a member of the International Cannabinoid Research Society, a collector of antique marijuana apothecary jars, the founder of an industrial hemp business and “a pot smoker consistently for 47 years,” Don Wirtshafter, an Ohio lawyer, has fought for decades to make marijuana legal, calling it “my life’s work.”

But when Ohio voters go to the polls Tuesday to consider a constitutional amendment to allow marijuana for both medical and personal use, Mr. Wirtshafter will vote against it.

Issue 3, as the proposed amendment is known, is bankrolled by wealthy investors spending nearly $25 million to put it on the ballot and sell it to voters. If it passes, they will have exclusive rights to growing commercial marijuana in Ohio. The proposal has a strange bedfellows coalition of opponents: law enforcement officers worried about crime, doctors worried about children’s health, state lawmakers and others who warn that it would enshrine a monopoly in the Ohio Constitution.

The result has been one of the nation’s oddest legalization campaigns. It pits a new generation of corporate investors against grass-roots advocates like Mr. Wirtshafter, who deplores “opportunists seeking monopolistic gains” and laments that America would have been much better off “if they would have just let the hippies have their weed.”

A recent poll by the University of Akron shows voters evenly split, but if the proposal passes, Ohio will be the first state to approve marijuana for personal use without first legalizing medical marijuana. That would put Ohio, a swing state, at the forefront of the national movement to overhaul marijuana laws — just in time for the 2016 presidential campaign. Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio, a Republican candidate for president, opposes Issue 3.

………

To complicate matters, the Ohio General Assembly has put a competing initiative, Issue 2, on the ballot; known as the antimonopoly amendment, it would block Issue 3 by prohibiting the granting of special rights through the State Constitution. There is certain to be a protracted legal battle if both measures pass.

There is also the matter that the granting of monopolies in the production of Marijuana might be unconstitutional.

We see state monopolies, and state granted monopolies and oligopolies, in alcohol because section 2 of the 21st amendment has been interpreted by the courts of giving states near absolute control over the alcohol trade within their borders.

This does not apply to weed.

The story is twisted:

The story of how Issue 3 got onto the ballot begins here in Columbus, the capital, with Ian James, a political consultant whose company, the Strategy Network, specializes in gathering signatures for ballot initiatives. In 2009, his firm helped legalize casino gambling in Ohio through a measure that amended the State Constitution and specified where casinos could be located.

………

Mr. James said he had “taken that premise and applied it to marijuana.” In early 2014, he said, he began meeting with lawyers and a potential investor, James Gould, a Cincinnati sports agent, to talk about a “tightly regulated system” to make marijuana available in Ohio. An organization called the Ohio Rights Group, then represented by Mr. Wirtshafter, was already gathering signatures for an initiative to make medical marijuana legal.

But Mr. James had a more ambitious plan.

With help from Mr. Gould, he found 10 investment groups willing to put up a minimum of $2 million each to finance a campaign to pass an amendment that would legalize marijuana for medical use and personal use in small amounts; set up a commission to regulate it; and designate 10 parcels of land — each owned or optioned by funders of the initiative — where marijuana could be legally grown and cultivated for commercial use.

………

The backers call themselves ResponsibleOhio. Among the investors: the former professional basketball player Oscar Robertson, the fashion designer Nanette Lepore, Mr. Gould and two great-great-grand-nephews of President William Howard Taft. Each investment group has committed as much as $40 million to build facilities if Issue 3 passes.

………

But perhaps the group’s most contentious marketing effort has been Buddie, an anthropomorphic marijuana bud who looks a bit like a spear of asparagus wearing green cowboy boots and a blue cape, and who has been turning up on college campuses around the state. Critics liken him to Joe Camel, the cartoon character accused of marketing Camel cigarettes to children.

To say that I have mixed emotions about this is an understatement.

My win-win scenario is for Issue 3 to pass, and for the federal courts to strip the monopoly provisions from the statute, but my second best alternative is for the corporate ratf%$#s to lose.

I have no clue as to how I would vote on this if I lived there.

TransCanada Decides to Wait for a Republican President

No Comments

They just requested that the State Department suspend its review of the Keystone XL pipeline:

The company seeking to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline asked the Obama administration on Monday to suspend its yearslong review of the project, potentially bringing an abrupt halt to a politically charged debate that had become part of a broader struggle over President Obama’s environmental policies.

It was not immediately clear whether the administration would grant the request, which was swiftly denounced by environmental activists as a bid to dodge a near-certain rejection of the pipeline. Allowing the delay would push off a decision until after the 2016 presidential election.

The company’s request introduced a new element of uncertainty into the administration’s decision-making process, offering the potential to free Mr. Obama from a politically difficult choice that has hung over much of his presidency. But if anything, it appeared to intensify pressure on him from crucial Democratic constituencies to reject the pipeline or risk being blamed for punting to another president. A delay would keep the issue alive in the presidential campaign.

TransCanada, the Alberta company seeking to build the 1,179-mile pipeline, made its request in a letter to the State Department, which must approve cross-border projects and had been reviewing its application for a presidential permit.

This is not a victory for the people, like me, who oppose the pipeline.

This is a tactical move to push any decision to the next administration, which the ratf%$#s at TransCanada is hoping that this will be a Republican, whose party has made approval of the transit of bitumen through the Ogallala Aquiferan article of faith.

Well, at Least One Head of State May Pay for the Iraqi Debacle

2 Comments

In the UK, the Chilcot commission has conducted a serious investigation how the Tony Blair government came to join in the Iraq invasion.

The report has not been reported to the public, but leaks are coming out, and the latest leak that ministers were instructed to burn the attorney general’s opinion which cast the invasion into doubt, and this one is big, because it demonstrates a direct knowledge that the invasion was on (at best) shaky legal ground, and that there was an active and aggressive cover-up of this:

Tony Blair has denied reports that ministers were instructed to ‘burn’ a report questioning the legality of the Iraq war less than three weeks before British forces invaded the country.

The Mail on Sunday quotes an unnamed senior No 10 figure saying that the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, presented a 13-page legal opinion on 7 March 2003 that suggested the war could be challenged under international law because of the lack of UN backing.

The paper’s source says: “There was pandemonium. The date when war was expected to start was already in the diary, and here was Goldsmith saying it could be challenged under international law. They said ‘burn it, destroy it’ and got to work on the [attorney general].”

………

On Thursday, Sir John Chilcot announced he would publish his long-awaited report into the Iraq war in June or July next year, giving government officials up to three months to carry out national security checks on its findings. In a letter to the prime minister, Chilcot said the text of his report – which is expected to be around 2 million words long – would be finalised in the week of 18 April 2016.

Blair’s office denied that he was the cause of the delay, saying he had replied to documents he received as part of the Maxwellisation process – in which witnesses who are to be criticised are given a right to reply – in August this year after receiving them in January.

Someone within the Chilcot commission has concerns that this report is going to get buried, and so stuff is leaking out.

Assuming that this report is accurate, and it certainly smells true, it creates a real possibility of some sort of repercussions to Tony “The Smiler”, even if it is just making him toxic enough that foreign governments who have been paying him big bucks (Pounds) as a “consultant” might terminate their deals.

I’d like to see him in the Hague, along with Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, and the rest of their Evil Minions™, but that is not going to happen.