Friday’s Mini-Report

December 28, 2007

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* AP: “The opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was buried at her ancestral village in southern Pakistan on Friday as riots that began after her assassination on Thursday continued across the country, leaving 23 people dead, including four security officers.”

* More: “The government laid the blame for the combined shooting and suicide bomb attack on a militant with ties to Al Qaeda, and ordered the army deployed to Ms. Bhutto’s home province of Sindh, where the worst violence occurred, including parts of the city of Karachi, as the protests descended into criminality and banks were ransacked, train carriages and cars set on fire, and shops looted and burned.”

* Still more: “The government ordered an almost complete shutdown of services to try to prevent the violence from spreading. Officials suspended train services between Karachi and the Punjab province to the east, and most domestic flights were canceled. Gas stations across the country were closed, making it virtually impossible to make a journey by car any great distance. Roads were closed around the city centers where trouble was anticipated, and television and Internet services were down or only sporadic in most cities.”

* Who killed Bhutto? Noah Schactman did a nice job publishing a “line-up of the potential killers.” It’s a lengthy list.

* An unexpected complicating factor: “Benazir Bhutto died from a fractured skull caused by hitting her head on part of her car’s sunroof as a bomb ripped through a crowd of her supporters, a spokesman for Pakistan’s Interior Ministry said Friday. ‘When she was thrown by the force of the shockwave of the explosion, unfortunately one of the levers of the sunroof hit her,’ said spokesman Brigadier Javed Iqbal Cheema.”

* Following up on a post from this afternoon, Greg Sargent interviewed John Deady, the co-chair of Veterans for Rudy in New Hampshire, and he is not backing off his original comments: “I don’t subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. They’re all Muslims.” (Note to political reporters: this is even more interesting than John Edwards’ hair.)

* Sign of the times: “The Miami Herald is outsourcing some of its advertising production work to India, the newspaper’s editor said Thursday. Starting in January, copyediting and design in a weekly section of Broward County community news and other special advertising sections will be outsourced to Mindworks, based in New Delhi.” Wait, community news in South Florid is being shipped to India?

* Keep an eye on this one: “The Environmental Protection Agency signaled Thursday that it was prepared to comply with a Congressional request for all documents, including communications with the White House, concerning its decision to block California from imposing limits on heat-trapping gases. The agency’s general counsel directed employees in a memorandum to preserve and produce all documents related to the decision, including any opposing views and communications between senior agency officials and the White House.”

* It’s almost as if the Bush administration doesn’t respect a free press: “Top editors at the military newspaper Stars and Stripes are asking for full disclosure of the paper’s relationship with a Department of Defense publicity program, called America Supports You, after disclosures that money for the program was funneled through the newspaper. The newspaper’s two top editors have asked that the acting publisher, Max D. Lederer Jr., and the Pentagon official who oversees the program, Allison Barber, release details of a relationship that involves employees of the newspaper’s business department overseeing contracts on behalf of America Supports You. The program was established three years ago to build public support for the troops. ‘This is not how an editorially independent newspaper should conduct itself,’ the executive editor, Robb Grindstaff, and managing editor, Doug Clawson, said in a Dec. 8 letter to Mr. Lederer and Ms. Barber, and copied to the secretary of defense.”

* Huckabee pulls a Cheney? “It looked at first like nothing more than a humorous update on the Dick Cheney shot-his-friend-in-the-face moment, this time featuring Mike Huckabee. But by the time Jim Tankersley was done, at the Chicago Tribune’s popular The Swamp blog, it had gained a serious edge. Tankersley, under the title, ‘Huckabee’s muzzle control problem,’ explored the candidate’s photo op ‘pheasant-hunting expedition’ in Iowa on Wednesday. A reporter asked why he hadn’t invited Cheney along, and Huckabee quipped, ‘Because I want to survive all the way through this.’ Har-har, and all that. But Tankersley then related that at one point, ‘Huckabee’s party turned toward a cluster of reporters and cameramen and, when they kicked up a pheasant, fired shotgun blasts over the group’s heads.’ He added: ‘This, friends, is dangerously bad hunting form.'”

* When discussing Pakistan, Huckabee might want to learn east from west.

* And finally, Jon Swift publishes the Best Blog Posts of 2007, as chosen by the bloggers themselves. Jon was kind enough to invite me to participate, and I was really impressed by all the posts included. Take a look.

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

The irrational fears of prudish and ignorant people should govern the fate of the world…

  • I just got Ken’s Guide to the Bible by Ken Smith, B.A.– the kind of book you used to be able to find on the shelves of bookstores before, uh, Bush, and the era of large Jesus book sections. Here’s a bit from the intro:

    Do people who pray to bleeding statues give you the willies? Do Darwin-bashing school boards and doctor-badgering right-to-lifers make your skin crawl?

    Then perhaps you’ll understand what drove me to write Ken’s Guide To The Bible.

    I read the whole book years ago. It’s interesting to read again, after I’ve become a little more educated. I’m going to start writing about a little snippet every day or so on my block (scroll over my handle to see the link). Since the right wing of politics in America today has so much to do with religion and with Christianity in particular, it’s topical and interesting to engage this.

  • When I read earlier today that Benazir Bhutto died from striking her head on the sunroof of her car, I thought it sounded odd. All that gunfire, all that shrapnel, and she died from a bump on the head on the lever of her sunroof.

    At least they aren’t claiming – yet – that it was suicide.

  • Open thread? I’ll take it.

    via AmericaBlog

    49 more at http://www.buffalobeast.com/122/50mostloathsome2007.html

    10. Alberto Gonzales

    Crimes: The most truckling, amoral flunky to ever serve as Attorney General. A jurisprudent organelle, he manifests no concept of the law independent of its expediency to the president. Would smilingly accuse himself of providing material support to al Qaeda at President Bush’s request, hurriedly plead guilty, sign his own death warrant and flip the switch himself. His testimony before congressional committees is to public service what cholera is to the small intestine. As first Hispanic Attorney General, Gonzo typifies the self-betrayal and ethical compromise necessary for minorities to become successful Republicans. Been felching sweet approval from Bush’s lily-white ass since Texas. A conscienceless, memo-drafting, loophole-crafting liar for hire, pushing for all the worst administration policies, including nixing habeas corpus, denying and then defending rendition, torture, political firings, and a ton of other evil stuff. He even visited a seriously ill and disoriented John Ashcroft at the hospital, attempting to coax him into reauthorizing a clearly illegal wiretapping program. The only Attorney General who ever could have made John Ashcroft a sympathetic character by contrast.

    Exhibit A: “The fact that the Constitution — again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it away.”

    Sentence: Death by dull guillotine, head bent by Beckham.

  • Can you imagine how we would view Bhutto is she were running for President. Her family history of corruption. Her playing footsie with Al Qaida. Her class warfare.Her backroom deals with Rice.

    Much the way some attack Hillary.

  • Friday’s mini-report omitted an important item. Bush is claiming that the pro-forma Senate sessions aren’t legit, and that Congress is actually adjourned. Therefore he’s exercising a pocket veto on the defense bill instead of actually vetoing it. Pay raises for military personnel, benefits and lots of other things are in that bill. Let’s see if he tries to make recess appointments too.

    Just how much of this abuse will this Congress take?

  • Rich has a really interesting point.

    I just heard the NewsHour say that Bush pocket vetoed the bill.

    I can’t remember the rules. IF Bush can pocket veto then can’t he make a recess appointment?

  • Open thread thought: has anyone directly polled the Democratic candidates against each other? e.g. “if you were choosing only between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton”?

    It’s a probably obvious but pretty important point, given that my theory of this race has always been that Clinton would be one of the last two, and the faster a clear “not-Hillary” emerged, the more likely it would be that she wouldn’t win. Without Edwards et al, who would be the preference? Same if Edwards/Obama or Clinton/Edwards was the binary choice.

    I don’t think these polls have been conducted, and it’s probably not surprising given that no campaign would likely commission this and the press is more concerned with the horserace itself than a deeper understanding of the electorate theoretically making the choices.

  • “I don’t subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. They’re all Muslims.”

    To be fair, I feel the same way about ReThugs.

  • Dale,

    I’m not just going to be blogging the Bible, I’m going to be blogging Christian theology and spin on the Bible, and what modern Americans in general think / say about the Bible– but using the actual text of the Bible (ooh! revolutionary) as the sounding board, and some help from Ken Smith.

    I’ll post a little reminder here every day I do a post. I didn’t do one yet, but I’ll write it later tonight maybe.

  • (Note to political reporters: this is even more interesting than John Edwards’ hair.)

    Yes, but is it more interesting than Hillary Clinton’s boobs?

    By the way, as schweeet as that “They’re all Muslims” quote is, I think this one is infinitely more fascinating:

    “When I say get rid of them, I wasn’t necessarily referring to genocide.[“]

    He wasn’t necessarily referring to genocide. He is granting the listener license to infer a non-genocidal meaning – driving The Muslims back into those caves he thinks they came out of, for instance. Of course, if they don’t go peacefully into those caves, then I suppose one is equally free to infer a genocidal message.

    Big of him.

  • UncommonSense, Silent but Deady isn’t necessarily referring to genocide because that term only applies to the wholesale slaughter of people. To unmitigated wankstains like Deadhead, “Muslims” (whatever that word means in his sick little brain) might not be people so he’s not certain if killing them all would constitute genocide.

    And for the record, I’m not necessarily suggesting SbD is a useless sack of shit who sells his wrinkled buttocks at truck stops in New Hampshire. That would be wrong.

  • I don’t think Huckabee can fully appreciate just how stupid he sounded tonight, using the Bhutto assassination to flog the border fence issue, and making up stats about how many Pakistanis are coming through our borders. That the media pointed out his phony facts has to count for something.

    Un-freakin’-believable.

  • Since this is open thread: The ambiguously named Alliance Defense Fund is a bunch of sniveling arseholes.

    Funny how none of these creeps will not come out (sorry!) and call themselves something more descriptive. Why not “People Against Equal Rights,” or even “Americans Against Gay Marriage”?

    It’s almost as though they think a more accurate name would make people hostile to their cause. Seems a shame. Lights under bushels and all that. (Yes, this is snark.)

  • Shit,

    “Funny how none of these creeps will not

    I don’t tolerate no dang double negatives.

  • Bush’s attempt to claim a ‘pocket veto’ because Congress isn’t in session is bogus.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling in Wright v. United States (1938) explicitly states that if ONE house is in session, Congress is NOT, repeat, NOT in recess for the purposes of pocket veto:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=302&invol=583

    The first question is whether ‘the Congress by their adjournment’ prevented the return of the bill by the President within the period of ten days allowed for that purpose.

    ‘The Congress’ did not adjourn. The Senate alone was in recess. The Constitution creates and defines ‘the Congress.’ It consists ‘of a Senate and House of Representatives.’ Article 1, 1. The Senate is not ‘the Congress.’

    The context of the clause itself points the distinction. It speaks of the ‘House of Representatives’ and of the ‘Senate,’ respectively. It speaks of the return of the bill, if the President does not approve it, ‘to that House in which it shall have originated’; of reconsideration by ‘that House,’ and, in case two thirds of ‘that House’ agree to pass the bill, of sending it together with the President’s objections to the ‘other House’ and, if approved by two thirds of ‘that House,’ the bill is to become a law. Provision is made for the taking of the votes of ‘both Houses’ and for the recording of the names of those voting for and against the bill on the Journal ‘of each House respectively.’

    Then, after this precise use of terms and careful differentiation, the concluding clause describes not an adjournment of either House as a separate body, or an adjournment of the House in which the bill shall have originated, but the adjournment of ‘the Congress.’ It cannot be supposed that the framers of the Constitution did not use this expression with deliberation or failed to appre- [302 U.S. 583, 588] ciate its plain significance. The reference to the Congress is manifestly to the entire legislative body consisting of both Houses. Nowhere in the Constitution are the words ‘the Congress’ used to describe a single House.

  • “I don’t subscribe to the principle that there are good Muslims and bad Muslims. They’re all Muslims.”

    wow. just wow.

  • (Note to political reporters: this is even more interesting than John Edwards’ hair.)

    Yes, but is it more interesting than Hillary Clinton’s boobs?

    Please. I’m eating here. And I disagree with your implication that Hillary Clinton’s boobs are more interesting than John Edwards’ hair. So, I believe, does Bill.

    Also, since Bush has the God-given power to declare anyone an enemy combatant and imprison them eternally, does he also have the power to declare that the Congress is out of session, regardless of the rules set forth by Congress, or even if all 435 Representatives and 100 Senators are actually sitting in their chairs in their respective chambers at the time?

    Were I David Addington, I would say, “That’s an interesting question. There are those who assert that the power to determine when Congress is formally considered to be in session resides with Congress, but in fact there is no such grant of power to be found anywhere in the Constitution. In the case at hand we are dealing with matters pertaining to the ability of the executive to prevent a bill from becoming law. The only rational answer is that “

  • (Sorry, premature posting.)

    Were I David Addington, I would say, “That’s an interesting question. There are those who assert that the power to determine when Congress is formally considered to be in session resides with Congress, but in fact there is no such grant of power to be found anywhere in the Constitution. In the case at hand we are dealing with matters pertaining to the ability of the executive to prevent a bill from becoming law, which is a power specifically granted to the executive in Article 2 of the Constitution. The only rational answer is that the determination of whether and how to exercise this power of the executive belongs with the executive itself. Congress might for its own selfish reasons attempt to arrogate this natural function of the executive to itself, but any reasonable reading of the Constitution must declare that attempt to be an unconstitutional overreach.”

    See, kids? You don’t need to go to law school to write legal opinions for the Bush Administration! You just have to have contempt for truth — and for pretty much everything and everyone else, too. Oh, and not have a problem with burning in hell for all eternity.

    • Comments are closed.