Well, looky here: Nancy Pelosi got herself deeper into the torture hole today almost as if to buttress our article from yesterday which was mostly about her.
The CIA last week contradicted Pelosi, saying she had been told about the use of methods such as waterboarding, or simulated drowning, in a September 2002 briefing.
The spy agency had issued a chart saying Pelosi, then the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and Porter Goss, the committee chairman at the time, were given “a description of the particular EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques) that had been employed.”
A besieged Pelosi held a news conference to give her side of the story, saying she was briefed that the Bush administration had legal opinions that concluded the use of these procedures were legal.
“The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed,” she said.
She accused the CIA of misleading Congress. She said the agency “gave me inaccurate and incomplete information” about the use of harsh interrogation techniques at the 2002 briefing.[snip]
CIA spokesman George Little stuck to the agency’s language.
“The language in the chart — ‘a description of the particular EITs that had been employed’ — is true to the language in the agency’s records.”
In short, Nancy had a rough day. Wait until the CIA fully responds, in that way they have, she will have an even rougher day.
* * * * *
Well, looky here – George Will has left the Obama dinner table and come over to our table. Yup – prim, proper and prudent George Will, who hosted Obama for dinner, is now pretty much saying what we have been saying: Obama is a crimelord. Will talks in Washingtonese, but Will is now saying what we got hammered for saying: Obama is a crimelord.
Prim, proper, prudent and bespectacled George Will at the end of Tincture Of Lawlessness writes:
The administration’s central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.
Corruption? Why is George Will saying such things? Perhaps it is the Obama bullying of opponents with legitimate disagreements. Perhaps it is the Mafia-style protection racket:
In February, California’s Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state’s fastest growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly and cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that “loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester.”
But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.
Such a federal ukase (the word derives from czarist Russia; how appropriate) to a state legislature is a sign of the administration’s dependency agenda — maximizing the number of people and institutions dependent on the federal government. For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is.
George Will is finally upset with the “cavalier disregard of contracts” in the Obama Chrysler machinations too. Will is only now piecing together in his own mind what we have written repeatedly about – the use of government taxpayer money to achieve personal political goals along with “servile banks that are now dependent on the administration for capital infusions”.
George Will finally is also discussing Tom Lauria and the Obama threats of personal destruction.
But it is the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) which has finally and totally awakened Will’s mind sufficiently to get him to rise from the dinner table:
The Troubled Assets Relief Program, which has not yet been used for its supposed purpose (to purchase such assets from banks), has been the instrument of the administration’s adventure in the automobile industry. TARP’s $700 billion, like much of the supposed “stimulus” money, is a slush fund the executive branch can use as it pleases.
George Will is exactly right when he terms TARP and the “stimulus” as a “slush fund”. Many Americans do not understand that when Congress appropriates money it is the executive branch that can expedite, or administratively delay forever, payments Congress intended. By giving Obama trillions in “stimulus” funds what the Congress actually did was give the Chicago thugs the ability to coerce.
Obama is now using that coercive power to threaten states and private companies into submission.
Back when PINO Big Blogs and the Hopium addled were praising the Obama budget overview we labeled it correctly as “Sleeveless, Clueless, Truthless, Hopeless, Penniless“. In our analysis of the “Flim-Flam Stimulus Scam” we stated:
This is not a “stimulus” bill. It is a political money waste designed to influence the 2010 elections.
Add to the government funded slush funds the other, TARP and Bebe Rebozo style slush funds and the corruption picture begins to take shape for those sitting in George Will’s dining room.
* * * * *
Well looky here, Associated Press is squinting its eyes open too:
In his first quarterly report on the nation’s stimulus package, Vice President Joe Biden uses anecdotes to paint a glowing picture of an economy on the rebound. In reality, the picture is incomplete and the colors far more muted. [snip]
But the effect of that spending is less clear. Many of the claims the White House is making are based on anecdotes selected to fit the Obama administration’s message. For instance, the report cites a newspaper article about workers being rehired at a factory in Chicago. That account is true, but is no more an accurate snapshot of the nation’s economy than a story, not cited in the report, about a Roanoke, Va., railcar factory closing.
Capturing the full effect of the stimulus at this early stage is difficult, but the administration has set high bars for success. In championing those successes, however, the White House plays a little loose with the facts.
AP will impress us when it stops “loose with the facts” talk and joins George Will and us at the “Obama is a crimelord” table. For now, at least AP is mocking the “created or saved 150,000 jobs” bunk coming from Obama/Biden at a time the country is losing well over a million jobs.
It’s not only AP and George Will. Others are using words which more accurately describe the Obama reality.
Fleecing lenders to pay off politically powerful interests, or governmental threats to reputation and business from a failure to toe a political line? We might expect this behavior from a Hugo Chávez. But it would never happen here, right? [snip]
The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. [snip]
Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact “uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies.”
The Obama administration’s behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law.
Americans used to demand developing economies respect contracts. Americans used to value law over bullying, favoritism and cronyism.
The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government’s threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.
* * * * *
The situation is so bad even the Washington Post editorial board is coughing up objections at the Obama dinner table.
DESPITE a massive infusion of government cash, General Motors is slowly and almost assuredly limping toward bankruptcy. The company’s stock has been hovering just above the $1 mark for the past few days, and chief executive Fritz Henderson has signaled that bankruptcy court may be the best — or perhaps only — venue in which the company can come to terms with its creditors. GM — and its partner, the U.S. government, which could get as much as a 50 percent equity stake in the company — have set themselves a deadline at the end of this month to decide what to do.
And therein lies the potential danger. The government’s intervention in GM’s financial affairs tilts the scales so dramatically in the company’s (read: government’s) favor that it risks shutting out the legitimate interests of some creditors in favor of politically connected players who are owed much less and have less of a claim to the company’s money.
We’ll remind the Washington Post editorial board that the Mafia moving in on a casino is very much like what is happening as the government moves in on private business. Maybe someone at the Washington Post editorial board is reading Big Pink?
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, and it was with this thought in mind that we endorsed the federal government’s decision to pump billions of dollars into the automakers. But the spectacle of creditors being stripped of their legal rights in favor of a labor union with which the president is politically aligned does little to attract private capital at a time when the government and many companies need these investors the most. Investors’ fears will only be compounded if the administration follows a similar blueprint with GM.
One day the Washington Post will completely wake up and join us and George at the reality table. They will one day learn that Crimelords only care about themselves.