Leading Republicans support anti-American terrorist organization

On foreign soil no less. As Greenwald mentions at the bottom of his article, this may be a violation of US law.

Imagine if a group of leading American liberals met on foreign soil with -- and expressed vocal support for -- supporters of a terrorist group that had (a) a long history of hateful anti-American rhetoric, (b) an active role in both the takeover of a U.S. embassy and Saddam Hussein's brutal 1991 repression of Iraqi Shiites, (c) extensive financial and military support from Saddam, (d) multiple acts of violence aimed at civilians, and (e) years of being designated a "Terrorist organization" by the U.S. under Presidents of both parties, a designation which is ongoing? The ensuing uproar and orgies of denunciation would be deafening.

But on December 23, a group of leading conservatives -- including Rudy Giuliani and former Bush officials Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, and Fran Townsend -- did exactly that. In Paris, of all places, they appeared at a forum organized by supporters of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) -- a group declared by the U.S. since 1997 to be "terrorist organization" -- and expressed wholesale support for that group. Worse -- on foreign soil -- they vehemently criticized their own country's opposition to these Terrorists and specifically "demanded that Obama instead take the [] group off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and incorporate it into efforts to overturn the mullah-led government in Tehran." In other words, they are calling on the U.S. to embrace this Saddam-supported, U.S.-hating Terrorist group and recruit them to help overthrow the government of Iran. To a foreign audience, Mukasey denounced his own country's opposition to these Terrorists as "nothing less than an embarrassment."

Read the rest of this post...

Americans prefer tax increases for rich or defense cuts to balance the budget

You don't say?

Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll showed.

The next most popular way -- chosen by 20 percent -- was to cut defense spending.

Four percent would cut the Medicare government health insurance program for the elderly, and 3 percent would cut the Social Security retirement program, the poll showed.

Read the rest of this post...

Bank of America pays $3 billion to settle on 12,000 mortgages

These are interesting numbers since everyone knows that between BofA and Countrywide (now owned by BofA) there were many more than 12,000 bad mortgages. As much as many are trying to put this mortgage scam problem in the past, this should confirm that there's much more remaining to be addressed. It's still hard to drill down to the culprits in this national (and international) scam because too many in Washington have too much skin in the game. The GOP is now the party of Wall Street after years of Democratic rule in that arena. The problem remains deeply embedded in the political system so it's difficult to imagine many tough questions being asked. Meanwhile we are likely to see more settlements and then hope that it will all magically disappear. Either that or that fewer and fewer questions will be asked as the public moves on to the next event.

Shares in Bank of America climbed 4 percent in premarket trading. Investors were worried that the bank, like other large mortgage sellers, may have to buy back billions in mortgages it sold with faulty paperwork and other problems.

The bank made a $1.28 billion cash payment to Freddie Mac, as part of the agreement to end all claims related to mortgages sold by Countrywide, a mortgage company bought by Bank of America, through 2008.

The bank paid Fannie Mae $1.34 billion in a similar agreement that settles claims on 12,045 Countrywide loans.

Read the rest of this post...

Nate Silver on a Palin candidacy

I wrote recently about Paul Krugman's seemingly off-hand comment on a Palin presidency. (He repeats that comment here.) Along with speculation on the Democratic side, this subject is worth more than a little thought.

Nate Silver, writing for the New York Times, has an update of his previous (pre-election) analysis of a Palin 2012 candidacy. It's an interesting read, and includes a 10-point analysis of various campaign parameters, such as voter enthusiasm, the 2010 effect, condition of the rest of the Republican field, need for a ground game and field offices, given her base voters' lesser reliance on new media, and so on.

Here's Mr. Silver's conclusion (h/t tedemang at reddit; my emphasis):

In the near term, I would look toward two things. First, what is being said about Ms. Palin on conservative blogs, on conservative talk radio, and on Fox News? These reflect the middle ground between elite and popular opinion and may provide a leading indicator — perhaps more so than polls — about how much the elite’s criticisms of Ms. Palin, and their concerns about her electability, are penetrating into the general public.

Second, I would look toward whom Ms. Palin is hiring as her support staff. A presidential campaign is a huge endeavor, comparable to a medium-sized business. Perhaps, because of her facility in commanding attention, Ms. Palin requires less assistance than a typical candidate might. Perhaps, because she sometimes seems to have an impatience for details and has not run for president before, she requires more. But all presidential candidates need some help: those candidates, like the Republican Fred Thompson, who have become too enamored with the notion of running a “viral”, nontraditional campaign from the confines of their living rooms have usually failed miserably. Is she hiring good pollsters, media strategists, fundraisers, consultants, logisticians, and advertising gurus? If so, she may still be as likely as anyone to prevail from a large, but fairly weak, Republican field. If not, her campaign, if she decides to run one, is liable to be a bust.

These are smart early indicators to be watching. But do look through the whole article. The subject is complicated, and Silver's analysis is one way to slice through it.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Anti-gay bigots accidentally strip health benefits from retired cops & firemen in El Paso

You'd think God would be better at writing legislation. Read the rest of this post...

Goldman offering its clients the chance to invest in Facebook

NYT''s Deal Book:

Facebook, the popular social networking site, has raised $500 million from Goldman Sachs and a Russian investor in a deal that values the company at $50 billion, according to people involved in the transaction.

The deal makes Facebook now worth more than companies like eBay, Yahoo and Time Warner.

Goldman Sachs has reached out to its wealthy private clients, offering them a chance to invest in Facebook, the hot social networking giant that is considering a possible public offering in 2012, according to people familiar with the matter.

No doubt Facebook is popular. But $50 billion? I hear those kind of numbers and I can't help but think of the Internet bubble of the 90s. Read the rest of this post...

The 2012 presidential primary and Alan Grayson

This is just for fun, of course, for the "God's spies" people who enjoy the ins and outs of strategic thinking. Offered for what it's worth. At this point I'm agnostic on the subject.

I found this article in my wanderings, a good analysis of (1) the pros and cons of a from-the-left, anti-war–based primary challenge to Obama, with (2) a special focus on Alan Grayson as the challenger.

The article is not about anything Grayson has said; it's not news or an announcement. It's not even speculation on the likelihood. But it is a thoughtful analysis of the if-then branches of that decision tree. I present it in that spirit, as a spur to your own thinking.

Current Beltway consensus holds that the 2012 race, like 2010, will be a referendum on the economy. But what if, instead, the war in Afghanistan, which Barack Obama has embraced, deteriorates dramatically, requiring a delay in the scheduled troop withdrawal or, worse, forces another escalation? Might Democratic anti-war sentiment -- until now a sleeper issue -- turn rebellious?

Already, national polls show a plurality (Pew) or a majority (Quinnipiac) opposed to remaining in Afghanistan, with the margins of opposition rising. ... With early caucuses in Iowa and the New Hampshire primary, the primary schedule would favor such an effort, even one that is largely symbolic. Both are states where anti-war sentiment tends to run high, and where there are relatively few African-American Democrats, who make up the core of Obama's support.

Thus the article starts. As I said, thoughtful.

Note the focus on war as the organizing issue. The precedent is Eugene McCarthy and his principled anti-war challenge to Lyndon Johnson. The benefit of a war-based challenge is that it creates a moral, as opposed to a political, context. Moral challenges are often tougher to dismiss and easier to defend.

There is much about Grayson in the article. Here's where he appears to stand:

[B]y 2010, his prominence with the Democratic base was such that he was able to raise more than $5 million before writing any personal checks or taking out loans. He's reportedly mulling plans for a book about the future of the Democratic Party that would likely appear in the midst of the run-up to the 2012 primary season, making a run doubly attractive. Until then, he could maintain his visibility by serving as a fill-in host for MSNBC's "The Ed Show," where he has been a frequent -- almost regular -- guest.

When White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dissed Democrats' liberal base months ago, Grayson called for his ouster. Yet for a politician not heretofore known for circumspection, Grayson had been extremely careful about criticizing Obama directly. He always argued for the most liberal positions, but in the end supported the Democrats' final compromise legislation. That is, until the tax cut vote, when he joined other dissident Democrats in writing a public letter to the president and opposing the measure.

A good picture of someone who is careful about party loyalty, but also about principles. (More on Grayson and party loyalty here.) There are clearly downsides to a Grayson challenge, and these are discussed as well. Do read if you're interested.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Oil inches closer to $100 on 'economic growth'

Now that is funny in a painful sort of way. If they are suggesting 1% or 2% growth is a cornerstone for a global recovery, the analysts are completely nuts. The US is years away from significant growth and kicking consumers with higher gas prices will only hurt the feeble attempts to get back to reasonable growth numbers. Once again the industry analysts are pumping hot air, traders are hyping news to grab a few bucks and our "friends" in the oil countries are squeezing every last cent out of the industrialized world. What part of "there is no real growth coming for years" are they missing?

Oil extended a rally above $92 a barrel on Monday, spurred by expectations that a global economic recovery is gathering strength and as market bulls set their sights on $100 a barrel.

U.S. crude was trading 77 cents higher at $92.15 a barrel by 1108 GMT (6:08 a.m. ET), just off a session high of $92.20, its highest since October 2008. It settled at $91.38 on Friday, marking an annual gain of around 15 percent and the highest year-end price since 2007.

Brent was up $1.20 a barrel at $95.95, off an intraday peak of $96.04, also the highest since early October 2008.

Read the rest of this post...

Full text of April Glaspie's cable about Saddam meeting before Kuwait invasion

A fascinating piece of history, courtesy of Wikileaks. The text of the cable that then- US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, wrote to the State Department detailing her meeting with Saddam Hussein right before Iraq invaded Kuwait. Many observers at the time blamed Glaspie for not convincing Saddam that we meant business. Most interesting to me was Saddam's apparent anger at USIA, our public diplomacy program that often gets short shrift from Congress. Seems USIA had seriously gotten Saddam's goat. Second interesting nugget is Glaspie saying that Saddam sincerely wanted peace. Oops. Read the rest of this post...

Judith Miller slams Assange for not verifying sources

You can't even make this stuff up. Judith-freaking-Miller who helped the Bush administration usher in the Iraq invasion with piles of lies lecturing someone else about verifying sources. It's no wonder she works for Fox News but it's just as easy to see her anywhere in the mainstream media these days. Read the rest of this post...

Another Teabagger hires yet another lobbyist

The Tea Party promises are increasingly looking as laughable as "Change you can believe in" from Obama. The reality of modern US politics is that it's a corporatist system that could care less what voting schmucks have to say. There is no shortage of useful idiots in either political party. More, from Think Progress:

WALLACE: Senator Lee, you have chosen an energy lobbyist as your Chief of Staff. Is that the right person to drain the swamp here in Washington?

LEE: I’ve hired the brightest political mind, political consultant, and lobbyist in Utah – a man named Spencer Stokes. He’s a brilliant man. He understands Utah politics and he understands Washington politics and I need a man like that to help me in Washington.

WALLACE: And you’re not scared off by the fact that he is a lobbyist?

LEE: Ahh no, he’s a lobbyist and he’s a political consultant and I am not scared off by that. He and I share a common vision…

Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

So we begin a new work week in a new year. 2011 should be lots of fun, right?

In two days, the new Congress will be sworn in. I don't think we have fully grasped just how painful this new House will be. One question is: which GOPer will emerge as the biggest whackjob? There are lots of contenders and the competition will be fierce. The ones who've been around for awhile, like Steve King, Louis Gohmert and Michelle Bachmann, won't want to cede any ground to the first termers. But, that freshman class is filled with extreme teabaggers.

Then, there's the Senate. The Democrats couldn't accomplish much with 59 votes. What's going to happen when they "only" have 53. First step should be some serious filibuster reform.

Speaking of the Senate, did people see Lindsey Graham on "Meet the Press" yesterday? This tweet and twitpic capture it perfectly. Carlos and I had the same reaction watching it.

The President returns to DC from Hawaii tomorrow. Yesterday, he did sign the 9/11 responsders bill into law. He'll pretty much be in reelection mode from now on (not explicitly, but in reality.) Still waiting to see which GOPers actually jump in.

So, we've got quite a year ahead. Won't always be fun, but should be interesting... Read the rest of this post...

Skype may be declared illegal in China

Uh oh. Who forgot to grease a few palms in China? Then again, how can a business as small as Skype really compete with the big money of the existing telco's in China that are already owned by the government? China can come up with whatever bogus excuse they want to block Skype but the real issue is all about corruption in the modern economic miracle. Not that we don't have our fair share of corruption within our own business/political system.

The popular Internet telephone service Skype could be dealt a major setback in one of the world's largest markets as the Chinese government cracks down on what it called illegal Internet telephone providers.

A Chinese government circular from the powerful Ministry of Information and Industry Technology called for a crackdown "on illegal VoIP (voice over Internet protocol) telephone services" and said it was collecting evidence for legal cases against them. It did not name any phone companies.

Skype was still available in China on Friday evening through its joint venture partner TOM Online.

Read the rest of this post...

British Conservative austerity triggers higher costs for unemployment

The big talk by the Conservatives was of course, just big talk. And to think the story of slashing costs sounded so tough and impressive just a few months ago. Now that it's going to cost much more to implement the tough talk, maybe people will wake up to the lies. The Guardian:

Rising unemployment will cost the government £1.5bn more than expected in welfare benefits, according to official forecasts that reveal the hidden cost of the coalition's austerity drive.

As big increases in VAT are due to bite from Tuesday, analysis from the Office for Budget Responsibility shows slowing economic growth will make it harder to reduce the deficit by forcing more people to seek state support.

The Treasury watchdog calculates the government will have to pay out £700m more in unemployment benefit than previously forecast. Similarly, a higher number claiming jobseeker's allowance as well as falling into lower wage brackets will see the government needing to pay out another £700m more in housing assistance over the next four years.

Read the rest of this post...