Deficit Discourse (2) ~ A Disaster Bequeathed to Us by BushCo

This graphic appeared at HuffPost this morning. It is not as useful as the very similar graphic I posted on here some months ago. This one is not quite as clear because it requires viewers to start at the upper left hand corner and work downward and outward - a lesson in how not to design an informative graphic. It nonetheless makes an important point.

Conservatives face a predicament. It was bequeathed to them by George Bush and his minions. They (conservatives) very much want to be deficit hawks and keep a keen eye out for government spending - especially when such spending threatens to benefit the less well off. Yet the clearest, simplest way to cut the deficit is to (1) rescind tax cuts Bush bestowed on the wealthiest Americans and (2) cut our losses and end the pointless wars he started. In other words, it is impossible to be a deficit hawk, a foreign policy hawk and a patron to the wealthy all at the same time.
__________
P.S.: And, of course, it is crucial to recognize - as the folks at HuffPost point out, that the dollar for dollar stimulating effect of tax cuts for the wealthy is significantly lower that what we get from other forms of government spending.

Keep the "Change": The Bush/Cheney-Obama Torture Policy

As discussed here and here and here and here and here and here, the Bush/Cheney torture policy is rapidly being embraced by the Obama administration. It is not just that Obama has failed to close Guantanamo, although that is bad enough. He has continued to implement similar policies in Afghanistan. And he has refused, systematically, to fulfill the duties of his office (you know, the bits were he pledged to faithfully execute the laws and uphold the Constitution) by investigating the systematic program put in place by BushCo to engage in and rationalize torture.

Let Me Count the Ways ...

. . . that Liz Cheney is out to lunch on the alleged "scandal" surrounding the Obama administration attempt to dissuade Congressman Sestak from running against Arlen Spector in the recent Pennsylvania Democratic primary. (Story here.)

First, Liz got her job in BushCo how? Was it because she is highly qualified and really smart? No. It was because Daddy was V.P.; can you smell the nepotism? Second, she is now a talking head on various Sunday opinion shows why? Because Daddy got her a job in BushCo and now she is cashing in on the right-wing connections to promote her career. Nepotism anyone?

Third, Liz is adamantly against any sort of inquiry into the various brands of seriously bad behavior that pervaded virtually the entire Bush administration. But an inquiry into this mess? Hypocrisy is seeping from her pores. The make-up crew at Fox News needs a commercial break to get her powdered up.

Let's not forget that Obama has finally achieved bi-partisanship on a policy initiative - lawyers of all stripes think that the attempt to buy Sestak is not illegal. It may have been stupid. But why would that surprise anyone? I guess the question I'd pose is whether this episode should be classified under "hope" or "change"? So, getting back to Liz, to a couple of doses of nepotism and a shot of hypocrisy, lets add just flat out wrong. That, of course, has never posed an obstacle to her thought process.

Finally, there is the fact that the economy is still a mess, we have an egregiously ill-handled environmental disaster in progress and still are fighting two inherited wars. Liz and the right don't want to talk about any of that because, . . . well, because most of those problems started under BushCo. Granted, Obama and his buddies have done precious little to get a handle on any of those problems. But the Republicans were in charge when the seeds of mishap and mayhem were sown. So, on top of everything else there is the sheer disingenuousness of her tirades about Sestak.

By my count that makes five. And I'm not even good at math.

Their Criminals, and Ours

"China has no 'dissidents' . . . There is only the difference
between criminals and those who are not criminals."
~ Ma Zhaoxu, Spokesman Chinese foreign Ministry

This is a remark, reported here at The Guardian, by a Chinese government official commenting on the imprisonment of Liu Xiaobo. It might seem comical to hear regime mouthpieces, with a straight face, parsing words in hopes of rationalizing their oppressive actions. But, as I have noted here repeatedly, it makes a difference. It makes a difference to individuals like Liu Xiaobo. It has consequences for the debasement of language and thereby of politics. And it does not, of course, happen only in those despicable far away authoritarian places like China. After all, just this week David Margolis, an official at the U.S. Justice Department, engaged in the very same practice. He announced that when John Yoo and Jay Bybee flouted - systematically and knowingly - domestic and international law in their quest to rationalize the torture of people being held in U.S. custody under suspicion of partaking in terrorist activity they simply exercised 'poor judgment' instead of professional misconduct. The distinction Margolis draws basically is between being morally obtuse and being legally culpable. The news reports are here and here. We don't have war criminals in the United States, we just have eager, if slightly flawed, public servants operating under circumstances of extreme stress.*

Just to be clear about the political consequences of all this - Margolis not only lets the Bush minions off the hook here, he gives cover to the 'let's ignore the past and hope for the future' strategy that Obama is pursuing on this matter. And, not to be overlooked, he allows countries like China to continue thumbing their noses at sanctimonious rhetoric from Americans.
___________
* But of course, as subsequent news reports make clear, we have dramatically incomplete record for making that assessment because large numbers of official emails to and from Mr. Yoo during the relevant time period mysteriously are missing and unrecoverable.

P.S.: And if you want to see that this language game is being played not just in the halls of justice but in the mainstream media, see this post and this follow-up by Glen Greenwald at Salon.com . . . We don't have Terrorists in the U.S., we just have deranged 'tax protesters.' (Meaning, presumably, that we cannot torture the latter if they are captured?) Just ask the folks at Newsweek. Pretty remarkable!

Dick Cheney Punks Barack Obama and Eric Holder

KARL: ... waterboarding, clearly, what was your...

CHENEY: I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques that...

KARL: And you opposed the administration's actions of doing away with waterboarding?

CHENEY: Yes.

This past weekend on national television Dick Cheney, former Vice President of the United States, admitted to criminal activities. More specifically, he admitting to advocating torture while he was in office. This - justifiably - has gotten reliable commentators agitated - look here and here. As is usual, Glenn Greenwald has a useful take on the situation:

"In general, people who commit felonies avoid publicly confessing to having done so, and they especially avoid mocking the authorities who fail to act. One thing Dick Cheney is not is stupid, and yet he's doing exactly that. Indeed, he's gradually escalated his boasting about having done so throughout the year. Why? Because he knows there will never be any repercussions, that he will never be prosecuted no matter how blatantly he admits to these serious crimes. He's taunting the Obama administration and the DOJ: not only will I not hide or apologize, but I will proudly tout and defend my role in these crimes, because I know you will do absolutely nothing about it, even though the Attorney General and the President themselves said that the act to which I'm confessing is a felony. Does anyone doubt that Cheney's assessment is right? And isn't that, rather obviously, a monumental indictment of most everything?"