Sunday, June 23, 2013

Your WaPo Headline of the Day

Headlines coming to the WaPo soon:

"No clear answers why Social Security hasn't been cut despite my demands" by Fred Hiatt

"No clear answers why Iran and Syria haven't been bombed back to the Stone Age despite our wildest dreams" by Hiatt, Diehl, Lane, Krauthammer, Gerson, Thiessen, and Rubin

P.S. Seen at Atrios' place:

From McClatchy: Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.
Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized disclosures of any information, not just classified material. They also show how millions of federal employees and contractors must watch for “high-risk persons or behaviors” among co-workers and could face penalties, including criminal charges, for failing to report them. Leaks to the media are equated with espionage.

Cross-posted at Whiskey Fire. Mouse over pics for captions, and click them for larger versions.


Big Bad Bald Bastard said...

What reason does Putin have to cooperate with the administration?

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

That headline referred to China...Snowden hadn't left yet. But the same question applies.

In fact:

=> “As the Hong Kong government did not yet have sufficient information to process the request, there was no legal basis to restrict Mr. Snowden from leaving Hong Kong,” the government said.

“At the same time, it has formally written to the U.S. government requesting clarification on reports about the hacking of computer systems in Hong Kong by U.S. government agencies. It will follow up on the matter, to protect the legal rights of people of Hong Kong,” the government’s statement went on to say. <=

Jim H. said...

No clear answers why Obama hasn't been impeached yet... for something.

Randal Graves said...


ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

Why is the TPP draft treaty such a big secret, Jim H.?

Is that what you voted for? I've been told I've never admitted that Obama's done anything good.

This isn't true...for example, the stimulus was good (albeit too small), the automakers bailouts were good, his 'evolving' on gay marriage was good.

But unemployment has been at or above 7.5% every month he's been in office. The vast bulk of the Administration's economic recovery efforts have been of the trickle-down money to TBTF banks (who, by the way, have been protected from prosecution for all their crimes).

And those good things are receding into the rear view mirror. Instead, he's been trying to get his "Grand Bargain" austerity package since creating the Catfood Commission in Feb. 2010. And we have this TPP trade deal, aka "NAFTA on steroids". And the continuing the Bush-Cheney War on Terror civil liberties abuses.

How can you defend it?

mikey said...

I won't pretend to speak for Jim, but to me your question is unfair and disingenuous, Thunder. I have never defended any of the undemocratic and economically counterproductive actions of the Obama adminstration. Indeed, I've been as scathing as anyone on matters I consider my bailiwick, including foreign policy and military affairs.

However, I did, and will continue to defend my vote for Obama in November. I refused to pretend there was some kind of electoral magic which provided us with any more than precisely two choices. Either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney was going to be the President of the United States for the next four years. For me, as much as I disagree with much of Obama's political and legislative agenda, I was absolutely appalled and terrified by the governing agenda of the Romney/Ryan campaign. THAT'S the part I'll continue to defend...

Jim H. said...

What mikey said. The thought of Romney/Ryan felt disastrous. Guy was a tool on foreign policy. Worse on domestic matters. Presidential elections are as much or more about 'attitudes' and 'directions' of the candidates than specifics, in my experience. One exception would be where there is something entirely predictable looming: let's say a war or a recession Then, you can vote for a specific policy. TPP was not involved in the election debate as an issue, as best as I can recall. If so, only to a minor extent. But, yeah, thanks to Elizabeth Warren for calling our attention to it.

I know nothing about TPP. As, apparently, is the case with everyone else. I do know that no treaty has any effect until the Senate approves it. So, PBO can negotiate whatever he wants with the Pacific Rim nations, but it will have zero effect until ratified (unobstructed) by your buddy Mitch the Turtle's minority minions.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

Who is being disingenuous?


You guys here are being defensive about your votes for Obama.

I've been getting flack from you both, forever (actually since 2010, when I finally figured out what a dishonest right-wing asshole he was).

He's not running again, you know. But I've seen no change in what either of you have to say: the lesser evil = means defend Obama against his critics. This is standard behavior for the Opologist crowd.

EVEN as those critics are proven increasingly correct. It's like the argument about global warming.

Obama said, "Make me do it," parroting Roosevelt. (Of course, he was being cynical. Of course, he filled his Administration with right-wing assholes like Rahm Emanuel, Clinton's anti-liberal specialist.)

And Obama gambled correctly: the Democratic base rolled over and played he kicked them again and again.

How have you made him do it?

"I hated on Greenwald on the internet."

"I told Obama critics to shut up, because the lesser evil!"

Tell me, mikey: would you be wishing Snowden come back to face "the consequences of his actions", if Bush were still President? For Obama fans, it's simply a popularity contest. They love Obama and hate Snowden, and you can forget about their previous alleged objections to indiscriminate government spying.

Don't talk to me about being disingenuous.