home

Friday Afternoon Open Thread

A lot is happening in Iran and a lot is being written about it. Besides not having the time for it, I have been reluctant to write about it because I think we know so little about how Iran is actually governed.

If you have thoughts about this issue, or anything else, feel free to comment here.

This is an Open Thread.

< Political Demographics, Identity Politics And The Potential For Progressive Policy Dominance | ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons Over Isolation Policy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    David Ignatius (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:01:38 PM EST
    WaPo

    What's happening on the streets of Tehran is a lesson in what makes history: It isn't guns or secret police, in the end, but the willingness of hundreds of thousands of people to risk their lives to protest injustice.

    --

    what will it take here I wonder?

    Protest injustice? (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Why, we have much better things to do--like wonder if Jon and Kate will get a divorce.  

    Priorities, Capt.  

    Parent

    I am so mad (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    honest to god.  I have never been so angry with a political party.  and you know what, I am not alone.

    if the democrats blow this they are dead.

    one question.  what do you suppose the country would look like if the REPUBLICANS controlled the house the white house and 60 votes in the senate?

    Parent

    Iran? (none / 0) (#4)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:17:55 PM EST
    As the old saying goes, if you're not p!ssed, you're not paying attention.  Too many oblivious people out there, I think.

    Parent
    oh (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:20:41 PM EST
    sorry, I was actually ranting about my current obsession, health care.

    I actually agree with the idea that the less anyone in government here says about Iran the better for the Iranians most likely.

    Parent

    I know... (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    ...that was my response to the question you posed about GOP control.  There are a lot of similarities.  

    When roughly three quarters of Americans support public health care, there is no excuse for piddling away that kind of mandate in deference to BigHealth and its deep pockets.  None.

    Parent

    none (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:25:56 PM EST
    The Washpo neocons (none / 0) (#38)
    by kmblue on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 04:00:54 PM EST
    are all ready to tell Iran to "suck on this" a la
    Tom Friedman/unit.

    Me, I'm worried about healthcare reform.
    I have a bad feeling that any chance of real change is in the dumpster.

    Parent

    Legitimate protesters have been (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    demonized for generations. They have become the great unwashed here in the U.S. Just a bunch of crazies.

    The media cheer the demonstrations in Iran and ignore and scorn protesters here.

    A majority of the population unable to get their basic needs met might be the only thing that would turn this around IMO.

    Parent

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#66)
    by bocajeff on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 07:06:00 PM EST
    like the teabaggers...

    Parent
    It's a wonder... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:21:46 PM EST
    how little it takes really, just courage and numbers.

    I fear the overall level of injustice here at home much get much worse and more painful before we grow the stones to look down the barrel of a gun.  I admit I don't have 'em right now...not even close.

    Parent

    you know (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:25:29 PM EST
    I think I disagree.  what it takes if for people to be directly affected.  this is why there were no protests of the Iraq war.  no one with the time to protest was being directly affected.  by that I mean possibly going to be cannon fodder.
    when people really start to feel it I think you may be surprised.  
    but then again maybe thats just because I was around for the late 60s and early 70s when that "sort of thing" was regularly done.
    it didnt seem like such a big deal then.


    Parent
    From late 2002 to April 12, 2003 (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:43:36 PM EST
    it has been estimated that 36 million people worldwide protested the imminent war in Iraq. On Feb 15, 2003 (MLK day) protests were coordinated around the globe, including American cities large and small. In October of 2002, a recondite state senator, Barack Obama, addressed protesters at Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago saying that he was not against all wars, but "dumb wars".  However, the outpouring of protesters was dismissed as a vocal minority in keeping with the Bush administration's programming and with the complicity of the MSM.  And then the bombs fell and the war was considered to be a smart one.

    Parent
    um, yeah (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:56:48 PM EST
    when they camp out across the street from the white house so Obama can hear the "hey hey O-ba-ma how many kids did you kill today" for months on end, let me know.

    Parent
    the late 60s and early 70s (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Cards In 4 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 04:47:48 PM EST
    saw young men getting drafted and sent to SE Asia.  Considering the U.S. had 500,000 troops in Vietnam meant an awful lot of families were directly affected against their will.  

    The far smaller size of troops in Iraq along with an all volunteer military made for a completely different environment for large scale protests.  Those longing for the good old days of protesting missed the importance of these factors.

    Parent

    True, but (none / 0) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:22:38 PM EST
    maybe these facts strengthen the meaningfulness of the protests that did occur around the world and within the US.  Yes, the Gulf of Tonkin frightened Congress and fostered a false domino effect, but the Iraq war was spun in the wake of 9/11 and with fear mongering of mushroom clouds over our cities.  I do believe the protests were effective to the extent that the lies and fears ran out of gas rather quickly, resulting in the electorate's call of getting out of Iraq in 2002 and 2004.  Indeed, the "l00-year" war promised by McCain helped return him to the senate where he was less likely to do damage.  The electorate, continues to be bamboozled with deadlines reasons  that move with the shifting sands.  Change has been tried in all the "right" ways. However,   protesters are now being held at bay by charisma and nice words.

    Parent
    Yes - What brought (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:15:31 PM EST
    down the Vietnam War for good was the drafting of students into the Army.  To me, abolition of the draft was and remains a mistake. We either go to war as a nation or not at all. Once Johnson admin started drafting students, Johnson lost support of the middle class.  Currently, our "volunteer" army is stretched to the max and beyond. To me, it is cruel and unproductive to keep sending the same soldiers for multiple tours of duty.

    Parent
    Thats kinda what I meant... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:26:50 PM EST
    injustice must become more prevalent, enough to effect us directly, and in larger numbers.  

    Parent
    No protests to the Iraqi War????? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 04:56:15 PM EST
    There were millions of people around the world marching in protest. Google it. My city sure had a big one.


    Parent
    Well, taking to the streets here (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:34:48 PM EST
    may have gotten a little more dangerous (the emphasis is mine):

    Just days ago, the ACLU of Northern California issued a press release announcing that it had filed a complaint over a Pentagon anti-terrorism training manual. That training manual, aimed at Pentagon personnel, describes domestic protests as "low-level terrorist activity."

    As Staff Attorney Ann Brick and ACLU Washington National Security Policy Council member Michael German write in their complaint letter to the Department of Defense, "For the DoD to instruct its employees that lawful protest activities should be treated as 'low-level terrorism' is deeply disturbing in and of itself. It is an even more egregious insult to constitutional values, however, when viewed in the context of a long-term pattern of domestic security initiatives that have attempted to equate lawful dissent with terrorism."


    Now, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I think this is really chilling.

    Parent
    I've been comparing how US protesters are treated (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:24:23 PM EST
    and how the MCM are utterly delighted by Iranians protesting.

    Wonder what David Ignatius would write about huge protests in the streets for single payer? Public plan?

    Parent

    chilling (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    is as good a word as any.
    if they think they will keep control of the federal government the "chicago way" its going to get ugly.


    Parent
    Very Ayatollah-ish (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:48:02 PM EST
    Another reason to take to the street...we're one small step closer.

    Parent
    Amusingly (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    Obama's take-it-slow approach to the Iranian situation has now been endorsed by Dick Lugar, Henry Kissinger, Ron Paul, and Bush's Iran envoy, Nicholas Burns.

    Charles Krauthammer can say whatever he likes, but that's a pretty broad swath of the opposition party right there!

    An interesting combination (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:33:52 PM EST
    of conservative realists and isolationisT.

    The problem with Iran is that its constitutional structure is even more complicated than ours, and the Presidency is barely relevant. The Economist once published a fold-out chart of how it works, which I can't seem to find.

    Parent

    The bloodshed.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 02:34:12 PM EST
    in the streets of Tehran hasn't begun in earnest yet. There's no way that the ruling bunch of religious nuts is going to give up even an iota of power willingly without the blood flowing freely.  
    I'll admit to being under-informed but the oppostion doesn't seem to have a whole lot of organization behind it.

    Parent
    It's not organized (none / 0) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 11:58:59 PM EST
    You're right about that.  But somebody on Christiane Amanpour's special on Iran on CNN just now pointed out that the current Iran ruling clique of mullahs were all part of the big Khomeini revolution against the shah, and are keenly aware that it was the shah's brutal crackdown on protesters then that energized the population to take down the government and install Khomeini.

    I thought that was a superb point, but we'll see how it plays out and whether the mullahs look back to their own revolution or to the aftermath of Tiananmen.

    Parent

    We shall see... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 09:25:24 AM EST
    WABC radio reported this morning the water cannons and tear gas are out.

    Parent
    kdog, you'd do a lot better (none / 0) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 09:23:33 PM EST
    if you knew even a fraction of the things you have opinions about.

    Do you have any memory, any awareness of what happened at Tienanmen?

    Water canons and tear gas are completely trivial in comparison.  The U.S. government used them freely against us in the anti-war protests in the '70s.

    The Chinese used tanks and AK-47s at Tienanmen.

    Parent

    Oh my gosh, yes, tear gas, (none / 0) (#84)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 09:40:55 PM EST
    water cannons, truncheons, and at Kent State and Jackson State they used real bullets, and people died. All in the USA in the '60s and '70s.

    I got cracked on the head so often I'm surprised I have any short term memory left.

    And all of it pales in comparison to Tienanmen Square.

    Parent

    Cranky are we G?... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 08:28:10 AM EST
    I'm well aware of what went down in Tiananmen Square...I was responding to your point about the brutality of the Shah garnering sympathy for the 1979 revolution,  water cannons and tear gas are the Ayatollah's play right now, as well as scattered shootings...we shall see just how brutal the Ayatollah will get in response to the uprising, and how much support it gets for the protestors.

    I wouldn't call water cannons and tear gas trivial either...not as lethal as bullets of course, but they hurt.  And are an affront to the inalienable right of people to peaceably assemble.

    Parent

    reading some of the glee around the web (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:49:49 PM EST
     They hear their masters' voices. Here's one that you will never see showing up in a press conference on the Hill. How did the noxious bankruptcy bill pass so easily a couple of years ago? How do credit card companies and trial lawyers continue to get their way on financial regulation and limitations for nuisance suits, even when the "party of the people" is in charge? Because that's who pays for the Beltway's reindeer games. And nothing has changed just because Barack Obama was elected. If you think you're going to get all of these people to vote for something that will drastically damage the profitability of an industry the size of the nation's health insurance giants, you should write fantasy novels for a living. The people who fun these elections on both sides of the aisle are cracking their whips and the politicians (yes... some of your Democrats, too) are falling in line.

    You're going to get a "health care reform bill" this year, but at this point I'm pretty sure that it's going to be a paper tiger having the primary goal of not having to admit to the Republicans that the Democrats have just been turned back on one of their centerpiece agenda items.

    ---

    I wish I could disagree with any of that.  if the part about the paper tiger is true we have to stop it. nothing is better.

    I think the senior senator (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Cards In 4 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 04:38:57 PM EST
    from the credit card capital of Delaware had a lot to do with that bankruptcy bill passing. Republicans found that the Democrats opposing the bill were less important than Biden and could be ignored.

    Parent
    Biden's participation was THEN (none / 0) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:07:44 PM EST
    and a speech he gave during the election cycle was NOW. I have this on very good authority from several very well educated folks I know. It was their response when I brought up his participation in the bankruptcy bill and his previous statements on what should happen to Iraq.

    Parent
    Wolverines! (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 01:56:35 PM EST
    For the first time in over 90 years, a wolverine is known to be in the high country of Colorado.

    A solo wolverine, perhaps in search of a mate, has traveled more than 500 miles to northern Colorado, the first confirmed sighting of the species here since 1919.

    Link

    Very cool!  Here's hoping this intrepid traveler's quest to find a mate is a successful one.    

    Hail, to the victors, valiant. (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:11:21 PM EST
    My advice (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:57:50 PM EST
    if he hopes to find a mate, maybe he should figure out how to talk about something other than himself, unlike most of the wolverines I went to school with.

    Parent
    Maybe a Spartan. (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 06:04:12 PM EST
    The old joke goes (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 06:07:40 PM EST
    How many Wolverines does it take to change a light bulb?  Just one, he holds it up and the world revolves around him!

    (The MSU version goes like this: Just one, but he gets 3 credit hours for it.)

    Parent

    We have the same joke (none / 0) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 12:00:39 AM EST
    about sopranos...

    Parent
    SoS Clinton's surgery (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    Clinton has successful surgery on broken elbow

    Link

    I Think Obama Is Correct (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by bob h on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    to be somewhat restrained in his comments about it all, keeping the Great Satan from becoming a diversion.  Compare yahoos like McCain, who wants the usual belligerence.

    Ahmedinajad and Khomeini are probably fatally weakened by this, and will fall in due course.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:16:28 PM EST
    Obama is doing the right thing by being restrained in his comments about Iran. It would be a diversion and something that the current powers that be would use to dampen down the opposition.

    Khomeini and the Guardian Council are the true power in Iran. The  president in Iran does not have the same level of power that our president has. That power resides in the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council. Most people in the U.S. do not realize there is a definite difference.

    Parent

    Huge difference (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 12:03:02 AM EST
    Makes me nuts to hear some of these TV morons going on and on about Ahmadinejad having "his finger on the nuclear button."  As if they'd let the guy within 100 miles of it, if they ever get it.

    Parent
    Justice Dept. to meet with gay groups: (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:17:44 PM EST
    From Think Progress and PlumLine:

    This morning, Greg Sargent reported that the Justice Department had refused to meet with gay rights legal groups to discuss how to move forward on cases involving the Defense of Marriage Act. Now DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Russo confirms to Sargent that the Department has reached out to these groups and will meet with them next week:

    The Obama Justice Department has reached out to major gay rights organizations and scheduled a private meeting for next week with the groups, in an apparent effort to smooth over tensions in the wake of the controversy over the administration's defense in court of the Defense of Marriage Act. [...]

    At the meeting -- which hasn't been announced and is expected to include leading gay rights groups like GLAD and Lambda Legal -- both sides are expected to hash out how to proceed with pending DOMA cases.


    The White House also admitted today that it was "seeking ways to include same-sex marriages, unions and partnerships in 2010 Census data."

    Seems a little back-asswards to do it this way, but maybe something good will come out of it;if it proves to be only to open the suddenly-closed wallets of potential donors, though, it could be very bad.

    if they allow (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:24:02 PM EST
    their wallets to be pried open with empty BS they deserve what they paid for.

    Parent
    I reserve judgement (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:25:39 PM EST
    until I hear what comes of these meetings.

    Parent
    It's getting very hard to trust (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:40:06 PM EST
    these kinds of moves, isn't it?  I tend to think that what they do is much more indicative of their true policy agenda than what they say, either before they try to pull the fast one, or after, when they are making nice.

    I think generally, one should not put too much trust is politicians, but "believe it when I see it" is becoming my standard reaction to almost all of what he says he wants to do, or what he believes or what day of the week he says it is.

    I guess you could say I am having trust issues.

    Parent

    Never trust them, ever (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    Politics is transactional.

    Parent
    I'd like to know why the meetings (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by dk on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:56:04 PM EST
    will be private.  Isn't Obama all about transparency?  I mean, our President says he wants to end discrimination, right?  Why does he have to do it behind closed doors.

    I say the justice dept. should have a very public meeting with these organizations, in which they very publicly hammer out a legal strategy to end legal discrimination in this country.  Televised working group meetings on C-Span, for example.  

    Parent

    Does this mean . . . (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 04:24:08 PM EST
    The White House also admitted today that it was "seeking ways to include same-sex marriages, unions and partnerships in 2010 Census data."

    they won't really move on anything until they see numbers? Interesting that they would refuse to meet with the groups . . .

    Parent

    This means (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:01:09 PM EST
    The WH is realizing that this issue (and gay people) are not going quietly into that good night and are becoming a distraction at a time when Obama is going to produce the greatest health care plan the world has ever known.  

    It's hard to multi-task.

    Parent

    I'd be willing to offer him a free course (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:22:40 PM EST
    "Walking and Chewing Gum at the Same Time" {grin}

    Parent
    Not convinced he is trying to produce the (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:24:52 PM EST
    greatest health care plan evah either.  Deferred to Congress until quite recently.

    Parent
    This is how the Iran is actually governed (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Saul on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 04:22:16 PM EST
    The BBC has this step graph on the Iran government.

    Here it is

    Iran Government

    Click on each item for more details.

    re: doings in tehran (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 02:54:51 PM EST
    i think everyone is completely misreading the events in iran, vis' a vis' the election. nowhere have i seen any indication of hate and discontent with the ruling mullahs, the guys who actually run the show there, just anger that their guy didn't get "elected" president.

    to attribute this with some kind of "democratic" revolution, as the right is doing (and many on the left as well) is laughable on its face. trust me, the irani's aren't pushing for the overthrow of the non-elected mullahs, they just want their own nutjob (but slightly less nutjob) as the figurehead president.

    regardless of the final outcome, nothing will have changed there, aside from some new names on the company letterhead.

    Juan Cole.. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:12:02 PM EST
    has, as always, an informative piece.

    "The protesters hope that President Obama will maintain his relative silence on the movement, lest he unintentionally tar them with the brush of imperialist stooges."

    Parent

    And I think you have it backwards (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 12:04:51 AM EST
    Mousavi is a vehicle for anti-government sentiment.  They do not make a hero out of him (although his incredible wife may be a different matter).

    Parent
    Seems likely, from what I have read (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:01:13 PM EST
    I think if the government hadn't been so quick to declare the votes counted and the results in, ie. had been less heavy handed in their vote fraud (if indeed that's what it was)it would have been different. The protesters aren't calling for a radical change in the government, just that the current government be honest.

    I say 'just' as if that is not a big deal. Obviously it is huge.

    Parent

    I disagree... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:05:21 PM EST
    we're all guessing, but I think Mousavi is a rallying cry by default...the protests and civil disobedience indicates general dissatisfaction with crooked government, rigged elections, and militia thugs.

    I think these people want a real democracy and more freedoms...Mousavi was in the right place and the right time...but who the hell knows, I'm sure every protester has their own reasons.

    Parent

    probably true (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:07:56 PM EST
    but I agree that if they had only been a little more realistic in their election fraud they might have pulled it off.

    Parent
    Good points (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:17:49 PM EST
    but you need to remember Mousavi was one of four picked by the supreme leader out of 400 some candidates to run for president.  I am sure he is not that far from Ahmadinejad in his politics.  He just doesn't shoot his yap off like Ahmadinejad.  The supreme leader would not give a broad range of choices to the people.

    Parent
    Real democracy and more freedoms (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    I think are exactly right, and Mousavi seems to be for moderate steps in the 'more freedoms' direction. Incrementalism, if you will.

    It is impossible to say what would have happened if he had lost in an election that was seen by objective observers as free and fair. Would people have taken to the streets anyway?

    Pointless to speculate since the premise of free and fair elections there is so far off. Might as well ask where a dog would go if he could ride a bike.


    Parent

    i think you all are deluding yourselves. (none / 0) (#71)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 11:02:46 PM EST
    if you would, for the rest of the class, point out anywhere that any iranian has indicated a desire to sweep away the ruling mullahs, and bring real democracy to iran.

    i thought not, because it isn't happening. as noted, all the presidential candidates were hand by the mullahs, the differences between them are, at best, superficial.

    anyone who thinks this is the beginning of some kind of "green" revolution needs to have their eyes examined, and stay away from the wheel of any motorized vehicle.

    it may turn into that, but i seriously doubt it.

    Parent

    Source of your anger? (none / 0) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 12:06:57 AM EST
    You're being very unpleasant, and you're characterizing the argument here in extreme terms that nobody else is using.

    Parent
    Forget Mousavi... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 09:34:25 AM EST
    I think he's just the "Turk 182" rallying cry, not the leader of this movement, there is no leader.  It's bigger than him and this one election...I think we're seeing years of anger and frustration boiling over.

    iow, it's not a pro-Mousavi protest ...it's an anti-government protest.  People don't stare down gun barrels over candidates handpicked by the council...thats like staring down a gun barrel over the DNC nomination last year, or the 200 election...it just ain't worth getting shot over.  Freedom is.

    Parent

    America safe is absolutely balderdash (none / 0) (#26)
    by joze46 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    Through the years one could believe that trillions of dollars have been taken from the American tax payer. Taxes given through the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and generous lending through our Congress and President.

    All the accounting, of which is likely buried in, ear marks, just plain grants, or what is called National Security Secrets, and the best of the best free money, offshore tax breaks with those secret Swiss bank accounts. Did these agencies have records in the Twin Towers?  

    For me the biggest paradox is that America is without a doubt in the most difficult time politically, economically, culturally, judicially, Jobs, and energy, all brought about by a Conservative wild war that was a choice and not needed. True conservative politics brings money back to society, not in stasis in secret bank accounts. Americans are told this with in the hundred days of the new president. Sheesh.

    What a laugh when one considers that likely if taxed appropriately these American and foreign political business banking would no doubt be able to finance just about any program legislated.

    I could remember watching Bush sitting on the floor in one of those little chairs in grade school in Florida on 911. In an extraordinary visual of our president, our first responder, just sits in a trance while a secret service agent tell George Bush a plane was hijacked and smashed into one of the twin towers.

    What is curious to me all these years in reflection, also considering mainstream media ignore this simple fact, George Bush our first responder, just sat there until it was validated several minutes went by, then Bush knew that the job was complete, the second plane crashed into the other tower. Worse a third tower never fully reported fell also. Three towers...

    Ladies and Gentlemen of America wouldn't one think as being the first responder, our president should have left immediately after the first warning. It is chilling even to consider that the reason he didn't move was for all around safety. That is non sense. Just as much of talk that Bush made America safe is absolutely balderdash.  

    So what do we do about off shore money that is due to the American tax payer, those Swiss accounts that will not be revealed? Answer; Pass legislation to flush out those perpetrators where as they must live in those countries for a minimum two years to be able to use that money and or put resrictions at any time be able to use that money here in America. If they want to be off shore let them move there with all the local benifits.  

    This would likely easily and eloquently avoid banishing these political business crooks avoid prosecuting by watching them move away ignoring their inherent civic obligation as a political person or business person. Given positions by elections or ability to do business here by, we the people. Talk about a reality show that is way over due.  

    Burris (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:30:49 PM EST
    is it 2010 yet? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 03:47:12 PM EST
    the day he really has to stand for election can't come soon enough.

    Parent
    How did he do that? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 04:54:16 PM EST
    I don't see anywhere in the article that he had done something slimey to get the prosecutors to reach the conclusion they did.

    What do you know that the prosecutors don't?


    Parent

    My guess (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:09:12 PM EST
    Burris is no dummy (he was Illinois AG for cryin' out loud!)  I'm sure he always chose his words very carefully.

    You'll also note Durkin's question: if Burris spoke to members of the Governor's staff or family members regarding his interest in the senate seat leaves lots of room for an answer.

    Burris' answer was "I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes." There is nothing wrong with this - it's like asking for any other job.

    Now, that could be all he did - there's nothing inherently in that statement that is slimy.  

    The unasked question would have been something like: "Did you speak to members of the Governor's staff or family members regarding your interest in the senate seat, and if you did, was there any discussion relating to a quid pro quo?" Then if he said they talked about it, but no quid pro quo was discussed, then (with proof) they could nail him - and finding proof of a quid pro quo might be easier than finding wrongdoing in "Did you ask for the job?"

    Parent

    It's hard to prove a person is lying... (none / 0) (#70)
    by magster on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:47:19 PM EST
    ...when they are delusional.

    Parent
    Ezra (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:17:48 PM EST
    pulls his punches on Froomkin. But I'm ok with that. Even I don't expect him to attack his employer.

    Compare to (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:18:48 PM EST
    asdf (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 06:06:42 PM EST
    As long as the right was in power, he was in effect the Post's designated moonbat, someone who attracted readers but didn't threaten the self-esteem of the self-perceived serious people at the paper. But now he looks like someone who was right when the serious people were wrong -- and that means he has to go

    This might explain the pervasive junk that typically comes out of the media.  Be right, and you'll be fired.

    Parent

    Wow, Krugman (none / 0) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 12:17:28 AM EST
    nails it on this, I think.  Worth reading the whole blog post linked above, it's not very long.

    Parent
    Another IG butting heads w/ administration (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:31:29 PM EST
    Link

    The Obama administration's disputes with government watchdogs do not end with fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin.  Behind the scenes, the Treasury Department is embroiled in a disagreement with Neil Barofsky, the watchdog for the $700 billion government bailout Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

    The dispute was revealed in a letter that Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent on Wednesday to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, first reported by the Los Angeles Times' Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten.

    As part of his duties performing audits and keeping tracking TARP dollars, Barofsky asked the Treasury Department for some documents about a financial institution receiving tens of billions in taxpayer bailout dollars. The Treasury Department refused to hand them over, "on a specious claim of attorney-client privilege," Grassley wrote. "It is my further understanding that this disagreement then escalated into broader questions about whether SIGTARP is subject to your direct supervision and direction, which may have been referred outside Treasury for an independent legal opinion."




    That transparency thing can sure be a (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 05:40:28 PM EST
    B!tch.

    Parent
    The better part of valor is for the employer (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 06:10:20 PM EST
    so say:  it's a personnel matter  No further comment  Why isn't the Obama admin. doing that?

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 07:54:59 PM EST
    Congress has oversight duties regarding Inspectors General - entirely appropriate IMO since their job involves ferreting out government corruption.

    Parent
    Federal judge, already in prison, impeached (none / 0) (#68)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:54:06 PM EST
    by the U.S. House of Representatives, and the case goes to the Senate for trial. This Texas judge refused to resign from the benchafter his conviction because he doesn't want to give up his salary. I must confess I was stunned to learn that judges are not automatically removed from the bench upon conviction. Why not?

    Voting for all 4 articles, one Alcee Hastings (FL) (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 10:33:29 PM EST
    Not that he's wrong to, but it's funny.

    Parent
    Alrighty (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    newly back from vacation.  Someone please tell me which Repub got caught with their something in someone else's cookie jar?  All I know is that some Republican got caught doing something extracurricular to the defense of their marriage act.

    MT, welcome back. (none / 0) (#81)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 02:46:34 PM EST
    The name you seek is Sen. John Ensign (R-NV). He had an affair with the wife of a staff member (she worked for him, too).

    Parent
    More on Ensign (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by caseyOR on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    He was a total pr!ck toward Bill Clinton during the impeachment. And, he very vocally believes that same-sex marriage will be the death-knell for the good kind of marriage. You know, the usual right-wing hypocrite positions.

    Parent