Today's edition of quick hits:
* There's a real crisis unfolding in Israel.
* Oil spill: "BP will pay approximately $4.5 billion and plead guilty to manslaughter and other criminal charges as part of a settlement with the U.S. government over the deadly Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010."
* Sandy: "President Barack Obama toured some of the hardest-hit areas of New York City on Thursday, neighborhoods still littered with the rubble of shattered lives and homes." The president also assigned HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan as the point person for the Northeast's Sandy recovery process.
* Pentagon: "Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday ordered the Pentagon to dig into and determine why an alarming number of generals and admirals have been snared by a variety of ethical lapses and misconduct allegations."
* A Republican National Committee report on the 2012 election points to "changing demographics, Hurricane Sandy, George W. Bush, and the failure to win over the middle class" as the reasons for their defeat.
* Asked why he wouldn't comment on why he failed to show up for a classified Benghazi hearing, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) replied, "Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me I can or not?" (Also see ThinkProgress' "ultimate guide" to McCain's smear campaign against Susan Rice.)
* One of the key problems with the right's Benghazi conspiracy theory: there's "no conceivable motive."
* Obama has nominated the first openly gay African American man to serve on the federal judiciary.
* Some House Republicans were poised to push for a rollback in their caucus' earmark ban, but reversed course today.
* And if you thought Rep. Scott DesJarlais' (R-Tenn.) scandal-plagued personal life couldn't possibly look worse, think again.
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
Leave a Comment:
BP Net Profits for 2010 to 2012: $36 billion. (Yes, even after the $50B settlement)
Penalty for killing 11 people, and uncountable economic and environmental damage: $4.5 billion.
BP reports they made $5.4 billion in the 3rd quarter of 2012.
This may be the best the government could do but it's disgusting. It's not a high enough penalty to force BP (and others) to reconsider safety.
... And we're still giving public subsidies to Big Oil WHY?
So... can't we send BP to prison now? I mean, corporations are people too, my friends... /sarc
The trouble with ignorance is that it picks up confidence as it goes along.
- Arnold H. Glasow
;-)
Re: Rep. Scott DesJarlais:
I don't have a problem with people choosing, after serious consideration, to have abortions.
I have a big problem with people who have abortions, or agree to their partners having abortions, but try to make abortion illegal for everyone else.
Do as I say, not as I do, otherwise, IOKIYAR.
Dr Scott DesJarlais, ( R-Tn District 4, ) had an affair with no less than two of his patients, (when he was legally married) impregnating at least one, demanding her to abort the BABY. All of this as he was campaigning on family values and anti-abortion.
MTSU poll findings~~ Meanwhile, the economy – a primary issue for voters nationally – seems to be taking a back seat to VALUES among Tennessee voters.”
DesJarlais, won with 55% of those Tennessee values, anti-abortion voters!
Ken Blake, director of MTSU poll, said "Tennessee is clearly not a swing state, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, at least to the presidential candidates,. This state is solidly Republican and should be for years — maybe decades — to come. While politics can be cyclical, it appears the South will remain firmly Republican for a long, long time"
HYPOCRITS???
I had a feeling the Middle East would go crazy after the election.
Tony: Whats your point?
That Tony has feelings.
@Coffee: LOL.
Pretty easy to figure out.
Tony
I hate to tell you but the Middle East has been going crazy for thousands of years. I know I'm Jewish and my ancestors came from there.
Netanyahu was red-flagging some kind of action for a long time, that's what I was saying. I put a big frame around my comment to draw some opinions in, but it doesn't seem to be an issue anyone wants to address.
20-20 hindsight. The House races which were virtually ignored by the mass media turned out to be the important ones.
DCCC funding was extremely thin, compared to the astounding amount of cash spent in Ohio and the swing states on the Presidential race.
I personally sent money to DesJarlais's Dem opponent (Eric Stewart) who should have beaten him decisively. He didn't. Stewart was slammed 57 to 43 percent. There simply was not enough interest among Dems to help him out except at the last minute when Desjarlais appeared vulnerable. The Media and Party elites were utterly transfixed by the shiny objects in the Senate and Presidential Race, and despite Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, Stewart did not have a strong enough operation to bring the scandal out earlier and capitalize on it. The information was in DesJarlais' publically available court documents so even modest Oppo research would have revealed it.
The DesJarlais seat should have been flipped, and not getting it was a demonstration of Dem Party organizational weakness.
Totally agree. I've always been frustrated by the lack of Democratic unity for an across-the-board election win strategy. Like you said, critical we are aware of and make changes to these organizational weaknesses.
It is tough for me because many of these Dem candidates in the south are Blue Dogs who are practically Bush like. So its like they would vote with Pelosi maybe 65% of the time, but be no shows on important votes like on gay rights or choice.
I declined to support Barrow in Georgia because he was so borderline (eg 35% rating from Naral, and 83% on border issues, indicating hawkishness on immigration reform) and many other candidates needed help.
If I had limitless cash I would have helped them all. 2010 was not inevitable, nor was it inevitable that Nancy would not be in control in the House. It is a question of whether we stay mobilized and apply the organizational principles that Obama used to all congressional races.
I suspect that the party apparatus is resistant to the radical changes required for that to become a reality. Certainly, that would be the case in my state.
It especially stings after they're elected and you have to watch them fight for blue dog principles, but in every one of these instances I dig down deep to remember how much worse it would be if the Republican had got into office. There is a vast pool of liberal minded individuals within the eligible to vote population that don't vote and we should definitely continue to aggressively pursue their participation, but we also have to grab every vote we can and there are many blue dog individuals voting Republican that we also have to fight for. Many of these blue dog Democrats would be more progressive when they got into office if there was a stronger unity within the whole party to better inform the public as to what's best for the country.
They like every other politician will go where the people are and we still have to work on improving our message delivery, especially when it comes to selling good policies that we put into work. Either way in the end it always comes down to an all in attitude and action, because if you're fighting for every vote even if it means you're getting a vote that will only crawl its way towards the progressive side of things, it’s still in the right direction.
I hope the fear of repeating the mistake of disengagement that led to the rise of the tea party will do a better job of ensuring engagement this time around. You and I have talked about how we should right now be redeploying the Obama campaign system for winning elections across-the-board within the Democratic Party, but we have to keep mentioning it until it happens. It really isn't that hard, most of the work was done already when the system was created, now we just have to switch it over to the other entities to keep it going. Believe me, like you, I wish I had more money and time to contribute more. But with the time I have now, I'll take this opportunity to thank you for your contributions.
Re: John McCain's response -- unworthy of a senior statesman. But no surprise.
The Think Progress and Mother Jones pieces cover the main points really well, but one of the biggest things that doesn't get mentioned as much and should be the first thing mentioned, is how absolutely disturbing it is that so much coverage completely ignores all of the incredible work Susan Rice has done and is doing as a public servant to all of us, and instead moves right into attacking her for one single non-incident.
It's unacceptable that most of the coverage I've seen around Susan Rice isn't paid the same deference Gen. Petraeous is afforded. Every single segment on Gen. Petraeous begins with pointing out all of his great works before they get into his affair. None of the segments within mainstream media start by delineating all of Susan Rice’s great works before digging into her Sunday morning statements. Gen. Petraeus dishonored his family, career and leadership position within the CIA. Susan Rice made statements proven to be accurate according to the information she had at the time. Gen. Petraeus engaged in his dishonor over an extended period of time. Susan Rice’s completely understandable statements were made on one single morning over the course of a few minutes. Both have distinguished careers, and both deserve the acknowledgment of these accomplishments. But only Gen. Petraeus deserves the sort of disdain he has received.
It's fair to ask questions about Susan Rice’s statements so we better understand the evolving situations surrounding the Benghazi tragedy, but given all we know now, there's no reason to continue to attack the statements or more importantly Susan Rice. The only people who deserve further scrutiny and harsh attacks are John McCain, Lindsey Graham and every other individual responsible for this completely disrespectful and baseless smear campaign. They especially deserve harsh treatment because they're using the tragic loss of four American lives to justify their personal, petty and overly aggressive attacks. This Pres. ordered an immediate and extensive independent investigation of the Benghazi tragedy and when the professionals have finished their work all of us will take a long hard look at exactly what happened, what we need to change and who deserves justice.
John McCain has lost all his integrity and deserves no respect. He was a pow 50 years ago and we can not continue letting him get away with his radical extremist views, just because he was once a hero long, long ago. John McCain is an anti-American racist!
If Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, then why in the hell was she out there giving the American public a gluttony of misinformation? That, and there was nothing "evolving" about this. The Associated Press has informed us that the intelligence community knew well within 24 hours that this was a planned terrorist attack by al Qaeda affiliates and that there were ZERO protesters. I mean, my God, the frigging State Department was watching it real time, for Christ!!!!! I'm sorry, Ms. Maddow but you cannot derail this one.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8887177
WASHINGTON (KABC) -- U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice described what precipitated the Benghazi attack based on initial intelligence that later proved to be incorrect, the deputy CIA director told Congress.
Mike Morell said Rice was provided with an unclassified version of events at the U.S. mission in Benghazi that left American Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others dead, according to Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the panel. Morell made his statements in a closed-door session with the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday.
That initial assessment concluded that an unplanned protest over an anti-Muslim video had escalated into an attack on the American consulate, a description that Rice presented in TV interviews Sunday morning after the attack.
"They gave us the best initial assessments, and those proved inaccurate, but they warned us those assessments were subject to change as they got more information," Schiff said.
Rice's comments have drawn strong criticism, with some Senate Republicans promising to block her nomination if President Barack Obama taps her to replace Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Mr. Obama angrily defended Rice on Wednesday at a White House news conference, calling the complaints outrageous attempts to tarnish her reputation.
Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Intelligence panel, said Rice was working with the information she was given.
She "was given that same information we received from the administration through the intelligence community. And that's the information she testified to, end of story," Ruppersberger said.
Despite this, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said they would work to defeat Rice's selection if she is nominated to be the nation's top diplomat. Graham said Wednesday that he couldn't back anyone who is "up to their eyeballs in the Benghazi debacle."
Though Mr. Obama aggressively defended Rice on Wednesday, the president's aides said this should not be seen as a sign that he plans to nominate her for the top job at the State Department. Instead, they said it reflects a frustration within the administration that Rice, a longtime adviser of Mr. Obama, is being unfairly targeted by Republican lawmakers.
She's more qualified to address the American public on this issue than the Associated Press.
Bull. What she told the American public that day was wrong and what the Associated Press reported came DIRECTLY from the CIA station chief in Libya. The woman (and Petraeus, too) is either out of the loop, was used by the Obama administration, or is flat-out lying.
And the CIA deputy director is obviously covering the administration's ass. Eli Lake of the Daily Beast and others such as Fran Townsend and Bob Baer have been all over this and there WERE NO PROTESTERS and the weaponry included such powerful things as mortars, grenades, and AK-47s....I mean, my God, people, the State Department was looking at this in real time and an al Qaeda affiliate was claiming credit for it WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING.
Abd obviously you have info nobody else has. You also haven't kept up on the latest info. And you know nothing about collecting intel.
Actually, I knew it was a terrorist attack 2 days later...
David M. Johnston
There was More to the Consular Attack than meets the eye...
U.S. Consulate attack in Libya part of 2-prong attack
BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — The attack that killed four Americans in Libya, including the U.S. ambassador, was an organized two-part operation by heavily armed militants that included a precisely timed raid on a supposedly secret safe house just as Libyan and U.S. security forces were arriving to rescue evacuated consulate staff, a senior Libyan security official said on Thursday.
Wanis el-Sharef, eastern Libya's deputy interior minister, said the attacks Tuesday night were suspected to have been timed to mark the 9/11 anniversary and that the militants used civilians protesting an anti-Islam film as cover for their action. Infiltrators within the security forces may have tipped off militants to the safe house location, he said.
...
The next attack came hours later. Around 30 American staffers along with Libyans had been evacuated to the safe house while a plane arrived from Tripoli with a joint U.S.-Libyan security group that was to fly them back to the capital, el-Sharef said.
El-Sharef said the original plan was for a separate Libyan security unit to escort the evacuees to the airport. Instead, the joint unit went from the airport to the safe house, possibly because they were under the impression they were dealing with a hostage situation, he said. The militant attack coincided with the joint team's arrival at the safe house, he said.
That the attackers knew the safe house's location suggests a "spy" inside the security forces tipped off the militants, he said.
#1.13 - Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:00 PM EDT
The second attack indicates a plan, a plan indicates premeditation... The terrorists used the protests as a convenient cover, missed by some intel sources...
But, hey, who said you have to be intelligent to be in Intelligence... After all, Michelle Bachmann is on the House Intelligence Committee, right?...
The Israeli government is like our right wingers. The Israeli people suffer because their government refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians even though Israel was once Palestine. I wonder if we would have handed them the country had we known they would continue to take more and more land away from the Palestinians? I wonder if the people who were re-patriated and handed homes in occupied settlements along with a stipend in order to "establish" Israeli footholds would have accepted the offer if they knew they were intended to become an excuse for war?
Let them go but quit giving them superiority with gifts of US arms and money.
Just my opinion and I am sure I will get an earful from the other side.
I don't navigate the interwebs terribly well, but I am looking for a progressive resource site that can address claims and statements from the Right-wing that seem to be being focused on with tremendous urgency by the Tea-Party, et al., but have little or no response from the Left. as an example, on the topic of "Obama missing 62% of all security briefings in the past 4 years," seems to be a red hot issue from Rush & Co., but I am hard pressed to find anyone other than them discussing this claim. It would be nice to have a go to site that specifically addressed the numerous assertions from the Neo-Cons.
You may have a problem. Almost all of the things that roil the right-wing are figments of their imaginations. The best you could hope for would be to google phrases and see what turns up.
Much of what upsets the right-wing is more a matter of projection on their part than what actually occurred. For example, the "missing 62% of intel briefings" is probably an attempt to portray President Obama as incompetent, although it may also have been intended to try and blunt any attempt to bring up GWB's rather lamentable attitude towards such briefings. His"You've covered your *ss, now you can leave" was, I believe, in response to the briefing that said Al Qaeda was considering hi-jacking aircraft and flying them into buildings.
For some reason, right-wingers are touchy about that...
Can't we just all get along! Can you say WWIII
With regard to the Sandy cleanup: The Obama adminstration needs to monitor this carefully. Many victims are caught in a bind, with FEMA unwilling to pay until the private insurance companies have indicated what they will pay, and how much. Unfortunately the MO of many insurance companies is to delay compensation depending upon how desperate the recipient is, in the hope of getting a reduced settlement. If this plays out here, then pressure (in the form of negative publicity) needs to be applied to these corporations to correct this tendency toward such foul and unethical behavior.
Stop Hamas. Stop the rockets. It is that simple. Hamas turned Gaza into a terror hub after Israel left. Now they are an Iranian proxy. Their weapons and rockets come via Iran. Can you understand what it's like under contant random rocket attack? Think about it the next time you are out walking your dog or walking your kid to school. And remember you have only 15 seconds to find shelter. For the record Hamas rockets came first in 2001. They got better with time. Negotiating for two states is a good aim but not a solution. Read the Hamas charter. They are an antisemitic anti Israel terrorist organization. If you support or rationalize their actions you support targetting civilians. And no, there is no moral equivalent between Hamas attacks on civilian populations and an Israeli military op that targets terrorist infrastructure which is more often than not placed in civilian areas. Thanks for the opportunity to rant Going back to worrying about my friends and family who have been targeted by Hamas.
Hamas continues to try and "relitigate" the past (the Balfour agreements) with rockets. It will never work! Bad and unfair things happen to everybody, but there comes a time when people have to recognize that they can't change the past and undo what has been done - they can only plan for what kind of life they want in the future. Does Hamas really want a future where they are always spending their money and their people's lives fighting Israel? Do they really think THAT will get them their own homeland?
Doesn't Hamas understand that Israel is and always has been our "red line" in the Middle East? Do they really think Egypt will come to their rescue? Egypt has problems of its own - do you really think they want a war that will just make their problems worse?
Do they think that because we made a mess of things in Iraq and Afghanistan, that it will be the same with Israel? There are a couple of differences: the people of Iraq and Afghanistan didn't want us there and have never really supported us. You can bet Israel will want us there and will do everything in their power to support us.
I don't think many people in the US support all the things Netanyahu has done and many of us think he is a warmonger, but this isn't about him, this is about Israel.
I agree that Hamas should just cut it out with the rockets. They don't do anything to help them build Gaza into a place that is fit for human beings to live. On the other hand, Gaza is hell on earth, much if it thanks to the Israelis. They have been blockaded for years, with even basic necessities difficult or impossible to get. They have helped breed a mass of angry people who have over 50% unemployment, and all that goes along with it. The Arab world has fallen behind much of the rest of the world, often due to religious extremism. Why has that taken root? Because other than nations that have tons of oil, most Arab nations have little to offer. The solution? There needs to be a concerted effort by those nations, with assistance from the rest of the world, to build strong, sustainable economies in those countries. People with full bellies are far less likely to turn to extremism and violence than those who have nothing to lose.