Rachel: Police crime during Katrina

I'm not going to comment much; the piece speaks for itself. Rachel Maddow on police crime during Katrina:



As I've said before, not all cops are bad. But the good ones really need to clean house.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Allison & Jamie of Citizen Radio on The Young Turks

For fans of our recent children's story "Allison and the Blogging Knife", here's an interview with Allison Kilkenny and Jamie Kilstein on The Young Turks. The commentary is interesting, the phrase "new media" comes up a lot, and the stories are a hoot.

It might even give you "new media" ideas of your own. Take a look.



Citizen Radio, their joint operation, could probably use a donation — if for no other reason, to keep that Blogging Knife sharp.

You could also, you know, watch.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Taliban says mosque controversy is helping them recruit terrorists

ThinkProgress citing Newsweek:

Newsweek reveals the most concrete evidence yet that this campaign is serving to bolster support for Islamic radicalism abroad. In an interview with the magazine, a Taliban operative going by the name Zabihullah said that, by “preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor.” He goes on to explain that the anti-mosque campaign is providing the Taliban with “with more recruits, donations, and popular support.” Another Taliban official expects that the anti-mosque campaign will provoke a “new wave of terrorist trainees from the West,” similar to suspected Times Square car bomber Faisal Shahzad. Zabihullah concludes, the “more mosques you stop, the more jihadis we will get”:

Taliban officials know it’s sacrilegious to hope a mosque will not be built, but that’s exactly what they’re wishing for: the success of the fiery campaign to block the proposed Islamic cultural center and prayer room near the site of the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan. “By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor,” Taliban operative Zabihullah tells NEWSWEEK. (Like many Afghans, he uses a single name.) “It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.” [...]

Taliban officials say they’re looking forward to a new wave of terrorist trainees from the West like this year’s Times Square car bomber. “I expect we will soon be receiving more American Muslims like Faisal Shahzad who are looking for help in how to express their rage,” says a Taliban official who was a senior minister when the group ruled Afghanistan and who remains active in the insurgency. As an indication of the anger that is growing among some Muslims in the West, this official, who requested anonymity for security reasons, mentions the arrest of three Canadian Muslims in Ontario last week on charges of plotting to build and detonate improvised explosive devices. (A fourth individual was arrested in Ottawa last Friday in connection with the case.) The Ground Zero furor will likely add to that anger. “The more mosques you stop, the more jihadis we will get,” Zabihullah predicts.

Read the rest of this post...

Tennessee mosque attack also included gun shots

The Teabaggers must be thrilled with the big showing of violence. And yes, the arson and gun shots should be considered terrorism.

"It was nothing like a hunting rifle," said Sbenaty, an MTSU engineering professor and member of the Islamic Center's planning committee.

Female members of the center's congregation were on site and easily recognizable because of their wardrobe. He wasn't sure if the shots were being fired at the Muslim group, but in the aftermath of the weekend arson incident, he said they felt it necessary to report.

"We hope for the best, obviously, but this isn't hunting land. There's plenty of houses around here," he said. "To say we're nervous is a huge understatement. It's terrorism."

Read the rest of this post...

'Lawsuit challenges Obama's power to kill citizens without due process'

I stole Glenn Greenwald's headline because I don't see a way to improve it.

A nice tight read from Greenwald. This is big news, that the lawsuit preventing the government from murdering a U.S. citizen on sight is going forward (my emphasis in the last paragraph):

The lawsuit -- captioned Al-Aulaqi v. Obama -- was filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, and names Barack Obama, Leon Panetta and Robert Gates as defendants. Among other relief, the Complaint asks the court to (a) "declare that the Constitution [along with 'treaty and customary international law'] prohibits Defendants from carrying out the targeted killing of U.S. citizens, including Plaintiff’s son, except in circumstances in which they present concrete, specific, and imminent threats to life or physical safety, and there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize the threats"; (b) "enjoin Defendants from intentionally killing U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi" unless they demonstrate the applicability of those narrow circumstances; and (c) "order Defendants to disclose the criteria that are used in determining whether the government will carry out the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen" (emphasis added).

Just how perverse is the Obama administration's assassination program is reflected in the rights Awlaki is forced to assert. He alleges -- as the Complaint puts it -- that the Government is violating his "Fifth Amendment Right Not to be Deprived of Life Without Due Process." Just re-read that and contemplate that in Barack Obama's America, that right even needs to be contested.

Click and read; it's a fast article, and effective. Not to mention critically important — it may be good to be the king; but it's not good to have one. Our earlier report on this unbelievable civil liberties case is here.

Who are these people, that you have to sue them not to get shot on sight?

GP Read the rest of this post...

What happens when religious right leader Maggie Gallagher meets St. Peter

Read the rest of this post...

The Shock Doctrine in New Orleans

Five years ago there were reports that New Orleans, black and destroyed, would be rebuilt to white-guy specs.

In a way, it was kind of obvious; a great opportunity for Bush and his friends to race-swap a city just asking to be a white theme park.

Opportunity, say Hello to power and money. Here's Rachel Maddow talking about New Orleans housing, rebuilt to ... white-guy specs. She doesn't say "shock doctrine" but she could have. The phrases "George Bush" and "by design" come up around the 7:00 mark. (Sadly, Obama's name comes up too.)



Thanks, Rachel, for shining the light. Note that this doesn't happen without corrupt local politicians, blacks included.

Race-swapping in New Orleans is a long-term project; these guys will take two decades to do it. We're just seeing the score at the end of the first quarter. Looks like 14–3 to me.

GP Read the rest of this post...

Boehner's spending-cut savings canceled out by tax-cut extension

From The Hill:

Most of the budget savings from House GOP Leader John Boehner’s proposed spending cuts would be canceled out by the extension of upper-income tax cuts also backed by Republicans.

Boehner's spending reductions would total more than $700 billion in savings beyond cuts that Democrats have proposed. But that’s also the approximate cost of extending the tax cuts for upper-income earners, meaning extending those tax cuts would wipe out those savings.

Read the rest of this post...

Earl is a 'major hurricane,' aiming at East Coast

Based on the 5 day track from the National Hurricane Center, Earl will be roaring up the East Coast towards the end of this week. It's a big storm -- and powerful. Looks like Earl will maintain winds over up to 115 mph through Friday, when it will be off the Mid-Atlantic coast.

NHC's Earl page is here. The Weather Channel's Earl page is here.

If Earl keeps on this track, we can expect wall-to-wall weather coverage from the cable channels starting soon. Right now, only weather geeks are paying attention. Read the rest of this post...

Glenn Beck, a Mormon, says 'People aren't recognizing [Obama's] version of Christianity'

Wonder what would have happened had Beck bothered explaining his own version of Christianity, in which Jesus had sex with his mother, Mary. Read the rest of this post...

Private Security in Afghanistan

(NOTE FROM JOHN: This is part of an ongoing series of articles, exclusive to AMERICAblog, from Citizen Journalist Mark Fonseca Rendeiro in Afghanistan.)

We've learned a good amount over the past 7 years or so, about private security companies and their expanding role in military activity, especially the occupation of Iraq. So it should come as no surprise that here in Kabul, where I'm working for a month, there is also a huge presence of private security personnel (local not foreign) throughout the city.

Drive or walk down any street in Kabul and you can't go more than a block or two before walking past someone dressed in some kind of combat uniform holding an old dusty AK-47. Sometimes it is clear, by the shop or building they are standing in front of, that this is a place that caters to alot of people and therefore has an armed guard. Other times these seemingly uninterested pajama clad gentlemen are just standing by the side of the road or sitting on the the sidewalk, I can only guess they've been assigned to these areas. Some wear the olive green of the Kabul police force, others where various shades of brown, green or black; these are the private security personnel.

This weekend I ventured into the highly fortified organization and embassy area, which features massive houses behind giant walls topped with barbed wire and additional metal fences. Each wall features an entrance gate with a guard booth and at least 2 private security guards on post with walkie talkies and AK-47's. Over and over again this scene is repeated, sometimes with an additional security gate or road block or spiked chain that will destroy the tires of any car that attempts to drive towards the building. Once you get used to seeing these scenes over and over again, it seems impossible to visualize the city without these security guards.

Meanwhile the Afghan President has announced his intent to shut down private security companies in the coming 4 months. He points out the problems private security has created and the threat they have become for pubic safety. Instead alot of the type of work they are doing should be carried about by the Afghan military or the police, both of which are seen by many as not yet ready to meet all the security challenges the country faces.


This leaves me wondering as I enter restaurants and private security search me for weapons on my way in, does this mean these people will be out of a job? Can these places they are guarding survive without them or under the care of the Afghan police? Most likely these type of security workers are not included in the president's ban. Still it brings it to question, how long will it have to be this way? As I walk the streets and I see a checkpoint, it does seem to slow vehicles down and provide some kind of security. Now the President has said it is time to remove many of these barricades. Is a city like Kabul ready for such a change? As a temporary resident for only 1 month and elections only a few weeks away, I'm of the opinion they should keep them just a little longer. Timetables for when security can be relaxed, in a place like this, are a risk I would be very reluctant to take. Read the rest of this post...

Election 2010: Younger voters not so eager this time

Joe and I have been predicting this for a year. But the Democrats repeatedly told us 1) we were nuts, and 2) the base would rally, come the elections. They're not rallying. And the elections are only two months away.

People voted for change. They voted for a fundamental transformation of our country. All the elements were in place to achieve just that. And what happened? We got a run of the mill Democrat in the White House, and a run of the mill Democratic congress. Both of which are surely better than their regular counterparts, but that's not what we were promised. We weren't promised "better than McCain." We were promised change. Any Democrat would have been better than McCain. Barack Obama was supposed to be different.

It's not simply that real change never happened. Our politicians, once in office, never seemed terribly interested in change ever happening at all. They ran on change, yet they ruled on incrementalism. And while incremental change is all well and good when you can't get anything better, it's a cop out when you could possibly get more, simply by trying, and you never do. Read the rest of this post...

Obama's messaging vs. substance

From E.J. Dionne:

[President Obama] and his party are often defensive when it comes to saying what they really believe: that government, well-executed, is a positive good; that too much economic inequality is both dysfunctional and unjust; that capitalism has never worked without regulation and a strong dose of social insurance. They no longer dare talk about public enterprise, a phrase my friend Chris Matthews reminded me of recently, visible in our great state universities, our best public schools, our road and transit systems, and in the research and development that government finances in areas where there is no immediate profit to be made.

The Obama press office, I know, can send me speeches in which he has made some of these points. But the president's efforts to lay down a consistent rationale, argument and philosophy have been sporadic. He has created a vacuum, filled by the wild charges of Glenn Beck, the disappointment of progressives who emphasize what he hasn't done and the tired "government is always the problem" rhetoric of his mainstream conservative opponents. He has thus left himself and his Democratic allies with weak defenses against a tide of economic melancholy.

I think Dionne is correct, but the lack of an overarching vision is affecting the specifics of the policy successes as well. Dionne cites the many accomplishments the Obama administration has already wracked up:

Seen from the inside, the administration is an astonishing success. Obama has kept his principal promises and can take credit for achievements that eluded his Democratic predecessors.

He pledged to have all combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this month and, as Obama will remind us on Tuesday, he's accomplished just that. Congress enacted a comprehensive health-care bill and a sweeping reform of how the financial system is regulated. His rescue of the American auto industry worked, foiling predictions that he'd run GM and Chrysler as if they were arms of Chicago's Democratic machine. There are many other legislative and administrative actions that, in normal circumstances, would loom larger if these were not such exceptional -- and difficult -- times.

A few are real successes, I would argue, like the auto bailout. And he did get the combat troops out of Iraq, as promised (at least that's what it seems). The problem, for me at least, is that the top promises that mattered to me have been botched, so that I don't really know what I'm getting out of this administration.

The stimulus. It wasn't big enough, they knew it wasn't big enough, they refused to fight for more, and now we're talking about ten years of economic malaise. On health care reform, the President was missing in action for a year (yes, he gave a few speeches, that's not seriously fighting for your goals). And yes, we finally passed something, even though it's not what was promised. Am I going to significantly benefit from what was passed? Are you? No one knows. And finally, for me, there's gay civil rights. On DADT, the President isn't pushing for a full repeal, and DOMA and ENDA are totally MIA. I'd also add in climate change, among the top issues that matter to me.

On the major issues of the day, that I care about personally, it's hard to point to much that's an overwhelming success. Regardless of what the print press says, I think a lot of people feel like me. They can't quite put their finger on how this administration has actually helped them. And that is a messaging problem, but it's also one of substance. Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

The President is back from vacation -- after a trip to New Orleans. Obama doesn't have any events on his public schedule. He's got the nationally televised address to the nation about the end of combat in Iraq tomorrow night. Let's hope he's preparing an excellent speech with a forceful delivery (unlike that dud of a speech on the oil spill.)

And, let's hope this speech, unlike Bush's of May 1, 2003, actually and finally means the combat mission in Iraq is over. I think our country should adopt a new rule: No more wars of choice based on lies. Is that too much to ask of our leaders?

Five years ago, New Orleans was under water and we were beginning to get a sense of just how inept the federal response was.

And, September starts on Wednesday. That came up quick. Read the rest of this post...

Report: US wasted billions in Iraq rebuilding

Maybe the Teabaggers can explain how this fiasco was the fault of the Democrats and not Bush and the GOP. Funny how obvious over-spending and waste was not much of an issue when the Republicans were in power.

A $40 million prison sits in the desert north of Baghdad, empty. A $165 million children's hospital goes unused in the south. A $100 million waste water treatment system in Fallujah has cost three times more than projected, yet sewage still runs through the streets

As the U.S. draws down in Iraq, it is leaving behind hundreds of abandoned or incomplete projects. More than $5 billion in American taxpayer funds has been wasted — more than 10 percent of the some $50 billion the U.S. has spent on reconstruction in Iraq, according to audits from a U.S. watchdog agency.

That amount is likely an underestimate, based on an analysis of more than 300 reports by auditors with the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. And it does not take into account security costs, which have run almost 17 percent for some projects.

Read the rest of this post...

Blair sought closer trade ties with Mugabe according to the UK Freedom of Information Act documents

A real force for good, wasn't he? None of this should be much of a surprise because he is the only world leader to completely wrap himself around George W. Bush's plans for invading Iraq. How could besides Blair himself ever see him as an ethical world leader? The Independent:

Tony Blair secretly courted Robert Mugabe in an effort to win lucrative trade deals for Britain, it has emerged in correspondence released to The Independent under the Freedom of Information Act. The documents show that the relationship between New Labour and the Zimbabwean President blossomed soon after Tony Blair took office in Downing Street.

Just weeks after the Government unveiled its ethical foreign policy in May 1997, the British PM wrote a personal letter to Mr Mugabe congratulating him on his role in unifying Africa and helping to improve relations between the continent and Britain. The signed message, which welcomed Mr Mugabe's appointment as leader of the Organisation of African Unity, paved the way for an attempt to bring the two leaders together in a face-to-face meeting in Downing Street during the first weeks of the New Labour administration.

Read the rest of this post...