She did it before - and destroyed evidence contrary to orders - and she'll do it again.
She even defended what she did, mostly evaded questions, appeared angry at those who questioned her, and generally behaved like someone the Duce might like but the rest of us should not.
I would rather she was fired in dishonor than rewarded by being made director of the agency.
Gina Haspel Vows at Confirmation Hearing That She Would Not Allow Torture by C.I.A.
Why would we believe that when she spoke as reported below?
Trump CIA pick: The real ‘tragedy’ of torture was people criticizing it
Gina Haspel, Trump’s pick to lead the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), may have shown her true colors Wednesday morning, when she lashed out during her confirmation hearing after being faced with concerns about the Bush-era torture program.
Haspel opened the hearing with the hollow promise not to reinstate the Bush-era torture program that she helped oversee and cover up, but repeatedly refused to say she believed it was wrong.
When Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) pressed her on reports that she supported expanding the torture program when it was being wound down, Haspel lashed out.
Wyden said he was “troubled” by Haspel’s apparent confirmation that she supported expanding the program, and Haspel responded by boasting that she wasn’t “on the sidelines” after 9/11.
“I think we did extraordinary work,” Haspel said.
“To me, the tragedy is that the controversy surrounding the interrogation program — as I’ve already indicated to Senator Warner, I fully understand that — but it has cast a shadow over what has been a major contribution to protecting this country.”
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
Does Bozo want a better deal or a better Iran?
Trump Withdraws U.S. From ‘One-Sided’ Iran Nuclear Deal
President Trump declared on Tuesday that he was pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, unraveling the signature foreign policy achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and isolating the United States among its Western allies.
“This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,” Mr. Trump said at the White House in announcing his decision.
“It didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will.”
As the following article explains, it was hoped by O and Kerry that the deal would lead to cooperation between Iran and the US against ISIS and Sunni extremism in general.
But Iran has allied with the Russians and Assad and refused out of hatred to cooperate with the US in any way.
What Trump and those who support this move are looking for is not so much a better deal as a better Iran, a better regime.
But Iran had a better regime in the immediate aftermath of the revolution that got rid of the Shah, a secular and democratic republican regime.
And the Iranian people promptly allied with the radical clergy whose leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, had sponsored the revolution to begin with to overthrow it and put in place the ferociously Shiite, anti-American republic utterly devoted to the destruction of Israel now in place, in which the power of the clergy to impose Islamic religion and law on the country is institutionally guaranteed.
What reason does anybody have to suppose that a collapse of the current regime would be succeeded by something better in the eyes of Israel or the US?
Maybe what would follow would be years of civil war and chaos.
And maybe Bolton, Trump, the Saudis, and the Israelis would be OK with that.
Behind Trump’s Termination of Iran Deal Is Risky Bet That U.S. Can ‘Break the Regime’
Bolton has long wanted regime change, even if it would take a war to do it.
For President Trump and two of the allies he values most — Israel and Saudi Arabia — the problem of the Iranian nuclear accord was not, primarily, about nuclear weapons.
It was that the deal legitimized and normalized the clerical Iranian government, reopening it to the world economy with oil revenue that financed its adventures in Syria and Iraq, and support of terror groups.
Now, with his announcement Tuesday that he is exiting the Iran deal and will reimpose economic sanctions on the country and firms around the world that do business with it, Mr. Trump is engaged in a grand, highly risky experiment.
Mr. Trump and his Middle East allies are betting they can cut Iran’s economic lifeline and thus “break the regime” by dismantling the deal, as one senior European official described the effort.
In theory, America’s withdrawal could free Iran to produce as much nuclear material as it wants — what it was doing five years ago, when the world feared it was headed toward a bomb.
But Mr. Trump’s team dismisses that risk: Tehran doesn’t have the economic strength to confront the United States, Israel and the Saudis.
And Iran knows that any move toward “breakout” to produce a weapon would only provide Israel and the United States with a rationale for taking military action.
. . . .
Exiting the deal, with or without a plan, is fine with the Saudis.
They see the accord as a dangerous distraction from the real problem of confronting Iran around the region — a problem that the Saudis believe will be solved only by regime change in Iran.
They have an ally in John R. Bolton, the president’s new national security adviser, who shares that view.
Israel is a more complicated case. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pressed Mr. Trump to abandon an arrangement that he has always detested.
But Mr. Netanyahu’s own military and intelligence advisers say Israel is far safer with an Iran whose pathway to a bomb is blocked, rather than one that is once again pursuing the ultimate weapon.
President Trump declared on Tuesday that he was pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, unraveling the signature foreign policy achievement of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and isolating the United States among its Western allies.
“This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,” Mr. Trump said at the White House in announcing his decision.
“It didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will.”
As the following article explains, it was hoped by O and Kerry that the deal would lead to cooperation between Iran and the US against ISIS and Sunni extremism in general.
But Iran has allied with the Russians and Assad and refused out of hatred to cooperate with the US in any way.
What Trump and those who support this move are looking for is not so much a better deal as a better Iran, a better regime.
But Iran had a better regime in the immediate aftermath of the revolution that got rid of the Shah, a secular and democratic republican regime.
And the Iranian people promptly allied with the radical clergy whose leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, had sponsored the revolution to begin with to overthrow it and put in place the ferociously Shiite, anti-American republic utterly devoted to the destruction of Israel now in place, in which the power of the clergy to impose Islamic religion and law on the country is institutionally guaranteed.
What reason does anybody have to suppose that a collapse of the current regime would be succeeded by something better in the eyes of Israel or the US?
Maybe what would follow would be years of civil war and chaos.
And maybe Bolton, Trump, the Saudis, and the Israelis would be OK with that.
Behind Trump’s Termination of Iran Deal Is Risky Bet That U.S. Can ‘Break the Regime’
Bolton has long wanted regime change, even if it would take a war to do it.
For President Trump and two of the allies he values most — Israel and Saudi Arabia — the problem of the Iranian nuclear accord was not, primarily, about nuclear weapons.
It was that the deal legitimized and normalized the clerical Iranian government, reopening it to the world economy with oil revenue that financed its adventures in Syria and Iraq, and support of terror groups.
Now, with his announcement Tuesday that he is exiting the Iran deal and will reimpose economic sanctions on the country and firms around the world that do business with it, Mr. Trump is engaged in a grand, highly risky experiment.
Mr. Trump and his Middle East allies are betting they can cut Iran’s economic lifeline and thus “break the regime” by dismantling the deal, as one senior European official described the effort.
In theory, America’s withdrawal could free Iran to produce as much nuclear material as it wants — what it was doing five years ago, when the world feared it was headed toward a bomb.
But Mr. Trump’s team dismisses that risk: Tehran doesn’t have the economic strength to confront the United States, Israel and the Saudis.
And Iran knows that any move toward “breakout” to produce a weapon would only provide Israel and the United States with a rationale for taking military action.
. . . .
Exiting the deal, with or without a plan, is fine with the Saudis.
They see the accord as a dangerous distraction from the real problem of confronting Iran around the region — a problem that the Saudis believe will be solved only by regime change in Iran.
They have an ally in John R. Bolton, the president’s new national security adviser, who shares that view.
Israel is a more complicated case. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pressed Mr. Trump to abandon an arrangement that he has always detested.
But Mr. Netanyahu’s own military and intelligence advisers say Israel is far safer with an Iran whose pathway to a bomb is blocked, rather than one that is once again pursuing the ultimate weapon.
Why smoke-filled rooms are better than primaries
Democracy in the wrong place enables demagogy.
Donald Blankenship.
Donald Trump.
The GOP was the party of Eisenhower and Nixon who gave us the Warren Court, a civil rights bill, federally enforced desegregation (Little Rock), and the EPA and thought conservatives and libertarians who wanted to undo the New Deal and abolish Big Government were idiots.
Then those same libertarians and conservatives, enemies of Big Government to a man but free traders, globalists, and anti-nationalists, took over the party and, as the so-called "Republican establishment", wanted no part of Donald Trump, and even now wants no part of Donald Blankenship.
During the 2016 campaign, they rejected Trump and rejected every piece of his Buchananist agenda, to date implemented only so far as Trump could manage it against the resistance of the Congress, the courts, and pretty much everybody in the executive branch, including some key people in the White House.
But now the uprising of the Buchananite rabble enabled by too much procedural democracy in the selection process for candidates does more damage every day, and the GOP is increasingly the party of people like Joe Arpaio, Judge Roy Moore, and Don Blankenship, all convicted of felonious defiance of federal authority, and Donald Trump, who can't go a week without angrily and brutally denouncing the federal courts, the FBI, the Justice Department, the Congress, immigration law, free trade agreements, the press, the Democrats, and whatever regulatory agency you care to name.
Big lie propaganda, protectionism, and even Luddism for industries that are dying and jobs that are obsolete are high on their agenda.
Utter loathing for the institutions of the federal government define them and their supporters.
Full frontal Buchananism, angry, defensive, and resentful white tribalism included.
The Democrats have become a party that honors Lincoln and upholds the ideals of the Radical Republicans.
The increasingly Trumpist and Buchananist Republicans are becoming a Nativist, white nationalist party that undermines the rule of law at every turn and defends public honors for Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and Nathan Bedford Forrest.
West Virginia primary: Blankenship brushes off 'bigot,' 'moron' accusations in radio ad
Don Blankenship looks to send Trump a message with a primary win in West Virginia
Update, 5/9/18.
Blankenship came in third. Morrissey won.
Donald Blankenship.
Donald Trump.
The GOP was the party of Eisenhower and Nixon who gave us the Warren Court, a civil rights bill, federally enforced desegregation (Little Rock), and the EPA and thought conservatives and libertarians who wanted to undo the New Deal and abolish Big Government were idiots.
Then those same libertarians and conservatives, enemies of Big Government to a man but free traders, globalists, and anti-nationalists, took over the party and, as the so-called "Republican establishment", wanted no part of Donald Trump, and even now wants no part of Donald Blankenship.
During the 2016 campaign, they rejected Trump and rejected every piece of his Buchananist agenda, to date implemented only so far as Trump could manage it against the resistance of the Congress, the courts, and pretty much everybody in the executive branch, including some key people in the White House.
But now the uprising of the Buchananite rabble enabled by too much procedural democracy in the selection process for candidates does more damage every day, and the GOP is increasingly the party of people like Joe Arpaio, Judge Roy Moore, and Don Blankenship, all convicted of felonious defiance of federal authority, and Donald Trump, who can't go a week without angrily and brutally denouncing the federal courts, the FBI, the Justice Department, the Congress, immigration law, free trade agreements, the press, the Democrats, and whatever regulatory agency you care to name.
Big lie propaganda, protectionism, and even Luddism for industries that are dying and jobs that are obsolete are high on their agenda.
Utter loathing for the institutions of the federal government define them and their supporters.
Full frontal Buchananism, angry, defensive, and resentful white tribalism included.
The Democrats have become a party that honors Lincoln and upholds the ideals of the Radical Republicans.
The increasingly Trumpist and Buchananist Republicans are becoming a Nativist, white nationalist party that undermines the rule of law at every turn and defends public honors for Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and Nathan Bedford Forrest.
West Virginia primary: Blankenship brushes off 'bigot,' 'moron' accusations in radio ad
Don Blankenship looks to send Trump a message with a primary win in West Virginia
Update, 5/9/18.
Blankenship came in third. Morrissey won.
Friday, May 4, 2018
Not quite truthful
Madeline Albright comes close, but does not admit that the republic was dead the moment the Spanish generals rebelled, and the "Republican" side was never that, but was an inevitably failed alliance of Stalinists and anarchists.
Franco's victory was both inevitable and best.
Fascism: a warning.
Thursday, May 3, 2018
A monthly retainer for legal services is not repayment for a specific, large outlay
Even if over a long period the sum of the retainers exceeds the outlay
The subtle Rudy has cooked up this lie, coordinated and cleared with Trump, to get Cohen off the hook for an unlawful campaign contribution, the hush money he gave to Stormy Daniels.
And that is intended to diminish the pressure on him to rat out his boss.
But nobody has yet pointed that out, I think.
Rather less subtle is Rudy's claim that Trump fired Comey because the G-Man would not publicly declare he was not personally under investigation, which some are seeing as an admission he was fired for not exonerating the president.
Trump Backs Rudy Giuliani’s Claim That No Campaign Money Went To Stormy Daniels
Michael Avenatti Stunned By Rudy Interview: ‘No Way, No How’ Trump Finishes His Term Now
The subtle Rudy has cooked up this lie, coordinated and cleared with Trump, to get Cohen off the hook for an unlawful campaign contribution, the hush money he gave to Stormy Daniels.
And that is intended to diminish the pressure on him to rat out his boss.
But nobody has yet pointed that out, I think.
Rather less subtle is Rudy's claim that Trump fired Comey because the G-Man would not publicly declare he was not personally under investigation, which some are seeing as an admission he was fired for not exonerating the president.
Trump Backs Rudy Giuliani’s Claim That No Campaign Money Went To Stormy Daniels
Michael Avenatti Stunned By Rudy Interview: ‘No Way, No How’ Trump Finishes His Term Now
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Doesn't get much clearer than that
Exclusive Image Demolishes Charlottesville White Nationalist’s Claim of Self-Defense
A self-avowed “white civil rights” activist was found guilty of malicious wounding Tuesday for his role in the beating of a black man at last summer’s Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
A self-avowed “white civil rights” activist was found guilty of malicious wounding Tuesday for his role in the beating of a black man at last summer’s Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
The newly published image above shows Jacob Scott Goodwin, who argued that he was defending himself, holding a shield and attempting to strike DeAndre Harris, who is on the ground.
The jury didn’t buy his story and it’s not hard to see why.
The beating left the 20-year-old Harris with a spinal injury, a broken arm, and cuts to his head that required eight staples.
Video of the attack went viral in the days after the rally and internet sleuths helped identify some of the men beating Harris, including Goodwin.
. . . .
The jury agreed, convicting Goodwin and recommending a ten-year sentence and a $20,000 fine.
The beating left the 20-year-old Harris with a spinal injury, a broken arm, and cuts to his head that required eight staples.
Video of the attack went viral in the days after the rally and internet sleuths helped identify some of the men beating Harris, including Goodwin.
. . . .
The jury agreed, convicting Goodwin and recommending a ten-year sentence and a $20,000 fine.
No safe places for white people
PC police are so utterly full of shit.
Prom Dress That Caused a Furor in U.S. Draws Head-Scratching in China
Those dresses are beautiful and perfect for spring.
My mother had one, many years ago, along with a pair of pajamas with a similar flowery, Chinese look.
When Keziah Daum wore a Chinese-style dress to her high school prom in Utah, it set off an uproar — but not because of its tight fit or thigh-high slit.
After Ms. Daum, 18, shared pictures on social media of her prom night, a Twitter user named Jeremy Lam hotly responded in a post that has been retweeted nearly 42,000 times.
Do people agree with this troll or do they think he's an asshole, I wonder.
Maybe he was kidding?
“My culture is NOT” your prom dress, he wrote, adding profanity for effect.
“I’m proud of my culture,” he wrote in another post.
“For it to simply be subject to American consumerism and cater to a white audience, is parallel to colonial ideology.”
Other Twitter users who described themselves as Asian-American seized on Ms. Daum’s dress — a form-fitting red cheongsam (also known as a qipao) with black and gold ornamental designs — as an example of cultural appropriation, a sign of disrespect and exploitation.
You have to wonder whether this vomit is actually the product of an alt-right tweeter flying a false flag, deliberately stirring the pot.
Cultural appropriation?
Is that like when Yo Yo Ma plays the cello?
When the Tokyo Symphony plays Mahler?
“So does that mean when we celebrate Christmas and Halloween it’s also cultural appropriation?” asked one WeChat user, Larissa.
Others were quick to point out that the qipao, as it is known in China, was introduced by the Manchus, an ethnic minority group from China’s northeast — implying that the garment was itself appropriated by the majority Han Chinese.
Prom Dress That Caused a Furor in U.S. Draws Head-Scratching in China
Those dresses are beautiful and perfect for spring.
My mother had one, many years ago, along with a pair of pajamas with a similar flowery, Chinese look.
When Keziah Daum wore a Chinese-style dress to her high school prom in Utah, it set off an uproar — but not because of its tight fit or thigh-high slit.
After Ms. Daum, 18, shared pictures on social media of her prom night, a Twitter user named Jeremy Lam hotly responded in a post that has been retweeted nearly 42,000 times.
Do people agree with this troll or do they think he's an asshole, I wonder.
Maybe he was kidding?
“My culture is NOT” your prom dress, he wrote, adding profanity for effect.
“I’m proud of my culture,” he wrote in another post.
“For it to simply be subject to American consumerism and cater to a white audience, is parallel to colonial ideology.”
Other Twitter users who described themselves as Asian-American seized on Ms. Daum’s dress — a form-fitting red cheongsam (also known as a qipao) with black and gold ornamental designs — as an example of cultural appropriation, a sign of disrespect and exploitation.
You have to wonder whether this vomit is actually the product of an alt-right tweeter flying a false flag, deliberately stirring the pot.
Cultural appropriation?
Is that like when Yo Yo Ma plays the cello?
When the Tokyo Symphony plays Mahler?
The very concept is a racist attack.
And the target is always somebody white.
And the target is always somebody white.
Actually, it is everybody white.
A point that has not escaped commenters actually living in Asia.
When the furor reached Asia, though, many seemed to be scratching their heads.
A point that has not escaped commenters actually living in Asia.
When the furor reached Asia, though, many seemed to be scratching their heads.
Far from being critical of Ms. Daum, who is not Chinese, many people in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan proclaimed her choice of the traditional high-necked dress as a victory for Chinese culture.
“I am very proud to have our culture recognized by people in other countries,” said someone called Snail Trail, commenting on a post of the Utah episode by a popular account on WeChat, the messaging and social media platform, that had been read more than 100,000 times.
“It’s ridiculous to criticize this as cultural appropriation,” Zhou Yijun, a Hong Kong-based cultural commentator, said in a telephone interview.
“It’s ridiculous to criticize this as cultural appropriation,” Zhou Yijun, a Hong Kong-based cultural commentator, said in a telephone interview.
“From the perspective of a Chinese person, if a foreign woman wears a qipao and thinks she looks pretty, then why shouldn’t she wear it?”
If anything, the uproar surrounding Ms. Daum’s dress prompted many Chinese to reflect on examples of cultural appropriation in their own country.
If anything, the uproar surrounding Ms. Daum’s dress prompted many Chinese to reflect on examples of cultural appropriation in their own country.
“So does that mean when we celebrate Christmas and Halloween it’s also cultural appropriation?” asked one WeChat user, Larissa.
Others were quick to point out that the qipao, as it is known in China, was introduced by the Manchus, an ethnic minority group from China’s northeast — implying that the garment was itself appropriated by the majority Han Chinese.
In its original form, the dress was worn in a baggy style, mostly by upper-class women during the Qing dynasty, which ruled China for more than 250 years, until 1912.
It was only in the 1920s and ’30s, when Western influence began seeping into China, that the qipao was reinvented to become the seductive, body-hugging dress that many think of today.
It was only in the 1920s and ’30s, when Western influence began seeping into China, that the qipao was reinvented to become the seductive, body-hugging dress that many think of today.
For many cinephiles, it has become inextricably associated with Maggie Cheung, the actress who wore a stunning array of cheongsams in Wong Kar-wai’s 2000 film “In the Mood for Love.”
These days, it is rare to see Chinese women wearing qipaos in the street.
These days, it is rare to see Chinese women wearing qipaos in the street.
Western “fast fashion” has taken over, though the qipao has made something of a comeback among some official figures, like the country’s first lady, Peng Liyuan.
“To Chinese, it’s not sacred and it’s not that meaningful,” said Hung Huang, a Beijing-based writer and fashion blogger, in an interview.
“To Chinese, it’s not sacred and it’s not that meaningful,” said Hung Huang, a Beijing-based writer and fashion blogger, in an interview.
“Nowadays, if you see a woman wearing a qipao, she’s probably a waitress in a restaurant or a bride.”
The Dems rightly accuse the GOP of harboring and even toadying to white racism.
And the GOPsters rightly accuse the Dems of harboring and toadying to anti-white racism, though the extent is by no means the same.
White racism is in the very heart of Trumpism.
Anti-white racism, though to a degree reflexive in nonwhite - especially black - Democrats, was neither a selling point nor an agenda item in the Obama White House, nor any other Dem administration.
Dems castigate the GOP as the party of traditionalist patriarchy - the word "misogyny" is more often used - but Hillary exemplifies perfectly and in person the misandry of some Dems.
All part of the sharpened polarization of American politics.
The Dems rightly accuse the GOP of harboring and even toadying to white racism.
And the GOPsters rightly accuse the Dems of harboring and toadying to anti-white racism, though the extent is by no means the same.
White racism is in the very heart of Trumpism.
Anti-white racism, though to a degree reflexive in nonwhite - especially black - Democrats, was neither a selling point nor an agenda item in the Obama White House, nor any other Dem administration.
Dems castigate the GOP as the party of traditionalist patriarchy - the word "misogyny" is more often used - but Hillary exemplifies perfectly and in person the misandry of some Dems.
All part of the sharpened polarization of American politics.
Don't you hate it when the bastards are right?
I certainly do.
Seven States, Led by Texas, Sue to End DACA Program
Opening another front in the battle over immigration policy, Texas and six other states sued the federal government on Tuesday in an attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
The lawsuit — joined by Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia — asserts that the Obama administration overstepped its authority when it created the DACA program, which allows individuals who were brought to the United States illegally as children to remain in the country, without congressional approval.
“The executive unilaterally conferred lawful presence and work authorization on otherwise unlawfully present aliens, and then the executive used that lawful-presence ‘dispensation’ to unilaterally confer United States citizenship,” the lawsuit says.
It calls on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas to “immediately rescind and cancel all DACA permits currently in existence because they are unlawful,” or at a minimum to block the government “from issuing or renewing DACA permits in the future, effectively phasing out the program within two years.”
Seven States, Led by Texas, Sue to End DACA Program
Opening another front in the battle over immigration policy, Texas and six other states sued the federal government on Tuesday in an attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
The lawsuit — joined by Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia — asserts that the Obama administration overstepped its authority when it created the DACA program, which allows individuals who were brought to the United States illegally as children to remain in the country, without congressional approval.
“The executive unilaterally conferred lawful presence and work authorization on otherwise unlawfully present aliens, and then the executive used that lawful-presence ‘dispensation’ to unilaterally confer United States citizenship,” the lawsuit says.
It calls on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas to “immediately rescind and cancel all DACA permits currently in existence because they are unlawful,” or at a minimum to block the government “from issuing or renewing DACA permits in the future, effectively phasing out the program within two years.”
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)