Jay Bybee deeply regrets authoring the legal opinions that gave the green light for the Bush administration to unleash its little army of sadists on various brown people (many innocent of any infraction at all, other than that of being Muslim and in the wrong place, which is near a hangable offense these days):

He said he was “proud of our opinions” at the Office of Legal Counsel, too, calling them “well researched” and “very carefully written.”

Still, he said the controversy surrounding his tenure there had been difficult.

“I have regrets because of the notoriety that this has brought me,” he said. “It has imposed enormous pressures on me both professionally and personally. It has had an impact on my family. And I regret that, as a result of my government service, that that kind of attention has been visited on me and on my family.”

So, yeah, it isn’t really the he regrets the torture of innocents, or the deaths that resulted from the torture he facilitated, but the fact that some people treat a torture apologist with disdain.  Which is completely uncivil.  And mean.  You know, people can be so cruel. 

Greenwald:

Just think about that. The so-called “government service” Jay Bybee did caused countless detainees to be subjected to systematized, medieval torture techniques designed to permanently break their mind and spirit. Innocent men spent years wasting away in a cage, with no due process of any kind, subjected to horrific and life-destroying abuse because of what Bybee authorized. For that work, he was rewarded with a life tenured, permanently-well-paying job as a federal appellate judge. But the only victim he recognizes in all of this is himself, and the only “regret” he has is the self-pitying objection that the dark, ugly and destructive work he did caused him to be subjected to some criticisms.

I blame the bloggers and the coarsening of our discourse.

Yeah, but did they check the kerning on the Koran?

It’s the Evangelical Rathergate! Ergun Caner is an evangelical apologist who rose to fame after 9-11 on the strength of his biographical narrative: raised as a devout Muslim, he spent his youth as a would-be jihadist until he accepted Christ. He parlayed that story, and his credentials as an authority on Islam, into a speaking and writing career before becoming Dean of Liberty University’s seminary. But an investigation reveals that a lot of the story is fictional.

What makes this story so interesting is that he’s terrible at playing a Muslim. Or, more accurately, that he got as far as he did while being so terrible. Check out these videos, posted by one of the bloggers who’s been on this for a while: he gets the Shahada wrong. He thinks there are 40 days in Ramadan. He confuses “insha’Allah” and “alhumdulillah.” The Christian equivalent would be like saying Jesus rose on Christmas– just a straight-up, WTF howler to anyone who’s even casually Muslim.**

Dude, even I know what insha’Allah means and I’m not pretending to be a former Moslem brainwashed terrorist disciple.  Though from what I gather, the pay sure is better.  

In terms of tells, check out how rapidly he speaks his Arabic version of the Shahada – like he know’s if anyone’s really listening, they’ll spot the fraud.

I don’t know what’s worse: that this charlatan conned so many “theologists” by stroking their confirmation bias and assorted bigotries, or that, even now, some defend him as the authentic article despite the heft of evidence against that conclusion.  Like cognitive bigotry.

(The conversation below is based on actual events. I’m pretty sure.)

General COIN Tosser:  So I have this fancy newish military doctrine that could come in mighty handy if you’re trying to pacify a rebellious foreign population - if you’re into the whole neo-colonial thing.

Obama Administration:  I’m listening.

General COIN Tosser:  Well, it’s called counterinsurgency doctrine, but since we’re the military, we acronymize it as “COIN.”  Shiny and new, huh?

Obama Administration:  Like a medal.  Ooh, if we try it, do we get to call it a “surge”?

General COIN Tosser:  Sure do, and the press will love it, but the whole process is designed to take a couple of decades, requires a shit-ton of soldiers and is guaranteed to chew up a few trillion dollars in the process.  But on the upside, after all is said and done, we’ll have at least a 50-50 chance of success.

Obama Administration:  Hard to argue with those odds.

General COIN Tosser:  I’d say it’s a bargain.  But it is a bit of a temperamental mistress, and will require a strong yet pliable central government in the occupied territory, yet one that enjoys popular support and legitimacy in the eyes of the locals.

Obama Administration:  Wouldn’t those contradict each other most of the time?

General COIN Tosser:  Please don’t interrupt.

Obama Administration:  I’m sorry, I forgot my place.

General COIN Tosser:  Also, too, it won’t work if the insurgents have a foreign patron capable of providing arms, funding and/or safe haven.  And we’ll have to develop expertise in the local culture and people.  But otherwise, a couple of decades, a few trillion dollars, and we’ll have at least a…er…coin toss chance of success. But the locals get the final vote.  Which they kind of did in the beginning, and all along, really.

Obama Administration:  I see.  But in Afghanistan the central government is corrupt, weak and unpopular - in fact, rule via a centralized government isn’t typical for Afghanistan historically speaking; Pakistan is providing support and safe haven for insurgents; We lack any sort of granular knowledge of the local culture and people, oh, and you’ll only have 18 months, not 18 years, to pull it of.  So what do you say?

General COIN Tosser:

Obama Administration:

General COIN Tosser:  Cakewalk.

And they all lived happily ever after.

Leaving aside the emphatic assertion that Petraeus’ “strategy” in Iraq worked (does he mean “worked” in the sense that Iraq is now one of the most corrupt countries on the planet?, or “worked” in the sense that Iraq is now the least peaceful country on the planet?, or perhaps “worked” in the sense that several extenuating and unrelated events led to a modest reduction in violence?), I found this bit of Petraeus leg humping to be quite the unintentionally hilarious bit:

Lost in the furor over the disgraced Gen. Stanley McChrystal is this simple truth: The counterinsurgency strategy championed by his successor, Gen. David Petraeus, works. [...]

There’s a terrific example of this in Small Wars Journal this morning, and it’s worth a read. Written by two officers of the 2nd Infantry Division’s Stryker Brigade, “Three Cups of Tea and an IED” captures in compelling detail what Petraeus, and the nearly 100,000 U.S. troops under him, hope to accomplish in the next 12 months.

Over numerous cups of chai – just as Greg Mortenson described in his bestseller, “Three Cups of Tea” — the American team of soldiers and representatives of USAID, the State Department and the Department of Agriculture collaborated to support local Afghan leaders in the Arghandab district of Kandahar Province, building security, local government and job opportunities.
Tragically, the aging warlord and district governor with whom the team worked was assassinated, but the effort continues.
Yes, but we won his heart and mind before they had to scrape them off the side of the road. 
And the effort continues, and as long as it continues, we haven’t lost.  In that sense, Petraeus’ strategy in Iraq did work.

Lara Logan wants you to know that she never pees on the uniformed leg of the U.S. military (…unless they ask, cause she totally would if they want her to, OK, she just wants them to know that she’s a team player…):

I thought I’d seen everything when I read David Brooks saying out loud in a New York Times column that reporters should sit on damaging comments to save their sources from their own idiocy. But now we get CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan slamming our own Michael Hastings on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” program, agreeing that the Rolling Stone reporter violated an “unspoken agreement” that journalists are not supposed to “embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter.” [...]

When I first heard her say that, I thought to myself, “That has to be a joke. It’s sarcasm, right?” But then I went back and replayed the clip – no sarcasm! She meant it! If I’m hearing Logan correctly, what Hastings is supposed to have done in that situation is interrupt these drunken assholes and say, “Excuse me, fellas, I know we’re all having fun and all, but you’re saying things that may not be in your best interest! As a reporter, it is my duty to inform you that you may end up looking like insubordinate douche bags in front of two million Rolling Stone readers if you don’t shut your mouths this very instant!” I mean, where did Logan go to journalism school – the Burson-Marsteller agency?

But Logan goes even further that that. See, according to Logan, not only are reporters not supposed to disclose their agendas to sources at all times, but in the case of covering the military, one isn’t even supposed to have an agenda that might upset the brass! Why? Because there is an “element of trust” that you’re supposed to have when you hang around the likes of a McChrystal. You cover a war commander, he’s got to be able to trust that you’re not going to embarrass him. Otherwise, how can he possibly feel confident that the right message will get out?

True, the Pentagon does have perhaps the single largest public relations apparatus on earth – spending $4.7 billion on P.R. in 2009 alone and employing 27,000 people, a staff nearly as large as the 30,000-person State Department – but is that really enough to ensure positive coverage in a society with armed with a constitutionally-guaranteed free press?

And true, most of the major TV outlets are completely in the bag for the Pentagon, with two of them (NBC/GE and Logan’s own CBS, until recently owned by Westinghouse, one of the world’s largest nuclear weapons manufacturers) having operated for years as leaders in both the broadcast media and weapons-making businesses.

But is that enough to guarantee a level playing field? Can a general really feel safe that Americans will get the right message when the only tools he has at his disposal are a $5 billion P.R. budget and the near-total acquiescence of all the major media companies, some of whom happen to be the Pentagon’s biggest contractors?

Does the fact that the country is basically barred from seeing dead bodies on TV, or the fact that an embedded reporter in a war zone literally cannot take a shit without a military attaché at his side (I’m not joking: while embedded at Camp Liberty in Iraq, I had to be escorted from my bunk to the latrine) really provide the working general with the security and peace of mind he needs to do his job effectively?

Apparently not, according to Lara Logan. Apparently in addition to all of this, reporters must also help out these poor public relations underdogs in the Pentagon by adhering to an “unspoken agreement” not to embarrass the brass, should they tilt back a few and jam their feet into their own mouths in front of a reporter holding a microphone in front of their faces.

That’s what separates the professionals from the blogger rabble.

Jeffrey Goldberg on the firing of Dave Wiegel for what are, self evidently, bullshit reasons:

The sad truth is that the Washington Post, in its general desperation for page views, now hires people who came up in journalism without much adult supervision, and without the proper amount of toilet-training. This little episode today is proof of this. But it is also proof that some people at the Post (where I worked, briefly, 20 years ago) still know the difference between acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior, and that maybe this episode will lead to the reimposition of some level of standards.

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote that.  Jeffrey “Pull My Strings and I’ll Go Far” Goldberg.  Warmonger propagandistLikud apologistSmear merchantShallow thinkerLousy journalist.

But without a doubt toilet trained.  Obedient.  Properly supervised.  Cautious champion of the wealthy and elite, deferential to power, obsequious to authority and prone to grovel like a good little doggy who doesn’t even need his wee wee pad anymore!

Look how proud mommy and daddy are, Fido.

If the pattern holds for the sanctimonious, moralizin’, sex obsessed, family values set, considering the GOP platform outlawing sodomy, strip clubs and homosexuality, there’s a whole lot of blow jobbing, anal sexing and ghey to be had.  And that’s just within the Texas GOP’s upper echelons

Maybe the State’s not all bad.* And now we finally know why Roy migrated. Cheeky bastard.

*(see, also, Austin)

BP upper management and shareholders are the Native Americans of Liberal Fascism.

If all you liberals keep being so mean to BP and other poor little oil companies, or make them follow all your “rules” or pay any amount of restitution when they ravage an entire ecosystem, the oil companies will pick up and drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico somewhere else, and then where will our drill baby drill be?

Normally we don’t like to point to embarrassing gaffes and laugh full gut-busting-piss-your pants laughter at the ignoramus in question, but since Marty Peretz is such a sociopathic, bigoted, evil son of a bitch, well, hahahahahahahahaha:

Obama commented that, if Hayward had been working at the White House, he’d now be out of a job. We’ll soon see how many people and whom the president actually dumps to make it seem that someone was held responsible. By now, someone would have been pushed off the ship if this were a British affair. Anyway, one low level woman bureaucrat is now receiving unemployment compensation. I forgot her name. But the big office at Energy, now empty, is that of the director of the Minerals Managements Service. Still, in Washington, the person to watch taking the real fall is Ken Salazar. [emph: from ed]

Jackass.

Next Page »