Oh, Tommy . . .

You really should have kept your trap shut.

You really have nothing to say about Iraq that has any credibility, unless, perhaps, it's an apology.

You now:

As I never bought the argument that Saddam had nukes that had to be taken out, the decision to go to war stemmed, for me, from a different choice: Could we collaborate with the people of Iraq to change the political trajectory of this pivotal state in the heart of the Arab world and help tilt it and the region onto a democratizing track? After 9/11, the idea of helping to change the context of Arab politics and address the root causes of Arab state dysfunction and Islamist terrorism — which were identified in the 2002 Arab Human Development Report as a deficit of freedom, a deficit of knowledge and a deficit of women’s empowerment — seemed to me to be a legitimate strategic choice.

You then:

What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, “Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?” You don’t think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This. . . We could have hit Saudi Arabia. It was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That’s the real truth . . .

We're getting closer to the day . . .

. . . when someone actually writes a book about what actually happened during the Bush administration. I hope I live to see it.

Just like ancient Rome

Paul and his whining:

Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

That’s a remarkable statement — or maybe the right adjective is “vile".

At least he attracts good readers with interesting things to say - the comments are better:

As an engineer and a one-time scientist I will tell you that all the admininstrations since Nixon have been anti-science. Oh, I forgot Reagan. He was big on defense science. His time was a boom period for those of us in toy development.

Ever since global warming and the end of cheap energy became obvious to scientist, corporations have been threatened by science. The first move to eliminate government funding of basic research began in 1972 under Nixon. This when the first warnings of the end of cheap oil and the effects of over-population and pollution came to light. A Rand Corporation white paper predicted how a rapid growth in population would produce dire consequences for human kind; that was 1969.

Corporations found it easier to turn down the volume by turning down the funding. That way, the average investor can stay fat, dumb and happy. Then, they started buying scientists to spin their own story. So, here we are with pseudo science to match the few who will speak up. Fortunately, there are more social-leaning governments in Europe to speak the truth.

Listen, the cheap oil started running out in 2003 when the Saudis lost one of their big reservoirs (background: Hubbert's Peak-wikapedia). The ACS published results showing that mercury contamination in fish caught in mountain streams match the levels in those raised in farms --- and, that level is near the danger threshhold. The temperature rise we are measuring annually will accelerate once the ice caps are melted year-round and this will happen in only a couple of dozen year --- and, it can't be reversed.

How do the rich benefit if the earth is over-populated, hungry, and in the dark. The rich always benefit. Look at Rome; you just climb higher over the corpses.

Finally . . .

Someone makes the connection:

"If James Murdoch was giving his lecture this year," Thompson writes, "I'd suggest he amended only one word in that final sentence. The only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is not profit. Nor who you know. Nor what corners you can cut. It's integrity."

Better late than never.

Best Fiscal Policy Proposal Yet

To end our long-term fiscal crisis I'm with Paul. I, too, believe that our only option is commence sub-orbital hostilities against the invading Venusian space armada.

Go back to law school

Ain't it the truth - commentary on the 11th Circuit travesty from an always-thoughtful commenter on TPM:

I'm a lawyer. It's hard to explain just how outside the mainstream this kind result would have been just 5-10 years ago.

I graduated a top law school in '02. If you had written something like this on your 1L Con Law exam you would have gotten an F, because it's not just a wrong view, it's a view that ignores 60 years of precedent.

To overturn the health care law is to erase the profound turn that the Supreme Court took in 1937 when it rejected the Lochner Era approach and adopted the modern/New Deal era approach to jurisprudence.

The idea that we're even having this conversation - and the Circuit courts are splitting on this question! - suggests just how far we've come in a very, very short time. The movement conservatives have all come out of the closet - even the ones on the federal bench. They smell a final victory: a return to Gilded Age America.

About that debt crisis, what can I say . . .

Obama's people just can't understand what happened.

If only someone warned them!

Save the Fair Maiden

Courtesy of the BBC today, Rupert inform us of his that his top priority is his red-head at the helm, as opposed to fully cooperating with police and getting to the bottom of what went wrong on her watch. Rupert appears not to be very concerned about the people in this country - other than Rebekah, of course - or their institutions.

Meanwhile, sonny-boy shrugs his shoulders:

On Thursday, News International chairman James Murdoch, son of Rupert, announced the paper would be closing down in the wake of the latest revelations and in its final editorial the paper said: "Quite simply, we lost our way".

News International said James Murdoch had no knowledge of the e-mails that Harbottle & Lewis were asked to review.

Here is a former NoW reporter's description of life in the trenches (also courtesy of the BBC) - an excerpt:

Moral qualms? Rarely. Celebrities, politicians and common-or-garden scumbags were the stock-in-trade and absolutely fair game.

Who would care about the ethics if you exposed a dodgy politician or a paedophile? Certainly not me.

You could put the fear of God into an MP just by phoning and saying: "Hi, I'm a reporter from the News of the World."

Kind of "ignore me at your peril". Definitely a thrill.

And to be honest, we were onto the next thing so quickly that we didn't have time to reflect on the stories and those involved.

All investigative reporters from any paper or TV channel have to cross boundaries to get the story. The end often justified the means.

And the resources? At 10am on a Tuesday (the start of the working week for us), it was: "Dan, go to Heathrow Airport. Pick up five grand in cash from the Amex desk. Get to Sardinia. Now." Boring? No.

But you were only as good as your last story, and I've heard other former journos describe how your bylines were counted up over the year, to see who would get the sack.

Based on demonstrable evidence to date, is it remotely plausible that News International "lost its way"? The only way in which this might be the case is that - for once - they've been caught red-handed and are on the defensive. But fret not: this, too, shall pass. Rupert's here to save his red-headed lass; he's taken the reins and they'll be on their way before you know it. They know exactly where they're going.

I hate the fact I didn't write this

Yes, News International is a "Good" Empire:

. . . I'm over the moon about that the Culture Secretary is about to make News Corporation an even more colossal media empire than it already was (it owns a third of the British newspaper market), despite heavy criticism leveled at News Corp-owned News of the World this week by the liberal media, who resorted to "facts" and "basic decency" in order to ruin this paper's good name.

Read the rest - someone finally puts their finger on the key to the Murdochs hold over governments:

The LAST thing anyone wants is a plurality of opinion and voices in the media. After all, when I said I heard lots of voices in my head, they called me MAD. This government has made the same decision I made -- pick one of those voices and follow it. No matter how INSANE and EVIL publications like News of the World appear to be -- according to "the facts" -- we can rest easy that this noble empire is about to become a lot more powerful, thanks to Jeremy Hunt.

Profound Insights by James Murdoch

James Murdoch today:

"These allegations are shocking and hugely regrettable."

Yes, James, deleting a murdered school-girl's voice-mails during a frantic search for her is pretty damned regrettable. It's good to know that you see this.

Of course, James fully supports the editor in charge at the time:

"Rebekah [Brooks] and I are absolutely committed, this company is committed, to doing the right thing and what that means is about co-operating and working fully with the police investigations into those alleged practices and into those activities. It's also about putting into place the processes, so that we understand what happened and we have a process in place to make sure these things don't happen again. I'm satisfied that Rebekah, her leadership of this business and her standard of ethics and her standard of conduct throughout her career are very good."

Gotta love the Murdochs. Thank God we can look to them to ensure "the plurality and independence of news provision, which is so important for our democracy."

I wonder when the penny drops . . .

. . . and it occurs to people, the media, the politicians and the police, that if you consider the incremental timeline of events leading up to where we are today in the phone hacking scandal, the pattern practically screams denial, deferral, obfuscation, misdirection and repeated, blatant lying by the most senior officials in the Murdoch machine. Consider, for example, how and when the first phone hacking allegations emerged - how long ago? - about the Royal Family. A relatively innocuous News of the World story about Prince William's knee injury was the first indication something fishy was going on at NoW. That story, published in November 2005, prompted fears that the voicemail messages of those closest to him were being intercepted. A police inquiry began. Any reputable organisation would have conducted a full internal investigation and rooted out any rot elsewhere. What was the outcome? In January 2007, two journalists, Goodman and Mulcaire were jailed for hacking. Then-editor Andy Coulson resigned but claimed he did not know about the practice, after which he was brought into the Prime Minister's cabinet (good judgement there by the PM!). What happened next? It was not until two-and-a-half years later, in July 2009, that the claims resurfaced again. The Guardian newspaper reported that NoW journalists had been involved in the hacking of up to 3,000 celebrities, politicians and sports stars' phones. And the police and the Press Complaints Commission had found no new evidence of phone hacking. So with all of that in mind, consider where we are today and consider why we should believe anything anyone in power or in the media has to say on the matter.

Getting kind of ridiculous now

On the whole, it's probably safe to say that the UK's Press Complaints Commission appears not to have performed up to par. But, what do you expect when you are effectively owned by those you are supposed to regulate?

This thing has descended into farce.

Ideally, it should be game, set, match

And I'm not talking about Wimbledon. I'm talking about the spectacularly ill-advised pending complete takeover of British Sky Broadcasting by Fox and friends at News Corp, which I've previously commented on from . . . time . . . to . . . time.

In a rational world, the latest stomach-churning revelations would be fatal to Rupert Murdoch's dreams of media consolidation in Britain.

But, sadly, Britain is not a rational world:

". . . Business Secretary Vince Cable set the terms of the investigation of the takeover as being exclusively about whether the deal would harm plurality or choice in the media.

"Mr Cable could have specified that there should be a review of whether News Corp is a fit and proper owner, but he chose not to do so. That means, according to my source, that Mr Hunt's hands are tied.

"That said, the media regulator Ofcom is not constrained in this way, according to a government official. Ofcom does have the power to determine whether News Corp is a fit-and-proper owner of all of BSkyB, or even its current holding of 39%.

"However, Ofcom can't make the adjudication until the police have completed their investigation of the extent of hacking and other invasions of people's privacy by the News of the World."

How fortunate for the Murdochs. Funny how that worked out.

The continent, too, wants in on the train wreck

I suspect Keynes isn’t very popular in Germany. For all I know they never heard of him. Angela Merkel appears to be either unimpressed or uninformed as she seeks to find political cover by convincing angry Germans that in return for Germany stumping up a few Euros more, Greece, Ireland and Portugal will sell everything that isn’t nailed down and impose fiscal austerity in ways their respective populations haven’t yet imagined possible. The Germans – and the ECB – will effectively take up residence in these countries’ Ministries of Finance, but this will not go unnoticed in the piazzas outside.

As real austerity begins to kick in, the political situation will become simply untenable.

Yes, fiscal stabilization in Europe is desired at all costs, but the reality of what is entailed to do this – absent adopting other Keynsian solutions in the mix - will without doubt destroy what is left of the EU’s political legitimacy.

I am not an economist and I don’t play one on the tee vee. I freely admit I am supremely unqualified to write or speak intelligently on Europe’s fiscal mess. And yet, perhaps purely by serendipitous coincidence, others have noted Keynes is fatally absent in today’s policy-making circles. Henry Farrell and John Quiggin, the latter the author of the great Zombie Economics, have written in the current edition of Foreign Affairs:

“. . . institutionalizing austerity will badly damage European economies in the short term – and the long-term consequences will be even worse. European politicians worry about the economic consequences if their attempts at fiscal stabilization fail. They should be far more worried about the political consequences.”

After Greece was caught cooking the books and Ireland was caught out as ridiculously profligate, when bondholders ran for the exits, the EU managed to contain the immediate crisis by creating the European Financial Stability Facility. This has the power to issue bonds and raise money to help eurozone states. The Facility stepped in with the International Monetary Fund provide short-term relief.

Beyond the short-term, however, it’s not a pretty picture. Portugal is likely to receive 50-100 billion euros over the next few months. If Spain also requires a bailout, the Facility will fall short. Default is not an option in Europe: the only absolute truth is that so long as a eurozone exists, there will be no Argentinas – at least as long as Germany has anything to say about it. As a result, Germany sees no alternative except making ruthless cuts in government spending. This seems fruitless: bondholders are likely to remain unconvinced in part because they know such cuts will not be politically sustainable.

As the authors point out, the EU is in mortal danger of “compounding its ongoing economic crisis with a political crisis of its own making”.

The only way out is Keynes:

“The short-term solution is clear – even if the European Central Bank, which is still fighting the war against the inflation of the 1980s and 1990s, refuses to recognize it. The solution is a one-off combination of market purchases of bonds and other financial assets, temporarily higher inflation, and fiscal support with the issuance of a common European bond. Quantitative easing, and higher inflation would help ease the pain of adjustment, and a European bond would allow the weaker eurozone states to raise money on international markets. All of this would shore up the euro long enough to allow for further-reaching reforms down the road.”

Everyone would have to make compromises:

“The major euro bondholders would have to bear some of costs – as they should, since they lent excessively during the first years of this century – through either explicit haircuts (in effect a discount of their bonds’ value) or inflation. Germany might not enjoy experiencing temporarily higher inflation, but if this were a one-time cost, it could probably live with the results – as long as it was also reassured that the long-term gain would be stability in the eurozone.”

Sadly, even if I thought policy-makers appreciated the peril of continuing down our current road to ruin, I’ve yet to see a European politician emerge with the courage and leadership qualities necessary to forge the required consensus.

Which makes my disappointment in Obama – who possesses such qualities – all the more painful.

Too bad he wouldn't listen

He heard, but didn't listen:

"If Paul Krugman has a good idea, in terms of how to spend money efficiently and effectively to jump-start the economy, then we’re going to do it. If somebody has an idea for a tax cut that is better than a tax cut we’ve proposed, we will embrace it . . . Just show me. If you can show me that something is going to work, I will welcome it"

That was in January 2009. Had Obama listened to the Nobel laureate - and others who knew a thing or two about fiscal stimulus - the economic recovery and especially the jobs situation would not be his Achilles Heel going into 2012.

I will never understand why - when Obama had all the political capital he required - he refused to accept the obvious.

Meanwhile, reality is finally staring to intrude on the coalition government and its Chancellor as Britain provides textbook instruction on how to repeat the mistakes of the past, with devastating results. The Guardian predictably piles on, but Hutton, as usual, puts it best:

"It is a tragedy – not only for our own unemployed and millions more whose chances of upward mobility and advancement have been wrecked, but for the character of the international debate. The UK – and the world – deserve better."

As the U.S. follows Britain lemming-like into the abyss, three words ought to haunt our leaders: John Maynard Keynes.

The golden age of comedy

We should be grateful our era has provided so much rich material.

Stephen Colbert To FEC: I Don't Want To Be The 'Chump' Without Unlimited Corporate Cash

Stephen wants a piece of the action that could be coming his way thanks to the Citizens United decision.

In the house of R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming

Without doubt this is the most insightful post about the Royal Wedding that I've seen. That hat deserves special attention. An apt description:

. . . a thing which was little more than a protoplasmic mass, from the body of which tentacles of every length and thickness flailed forth, from the head of which, constantly altering shape from an amorphous bulge to a simulacrum of a man's head, a single malevolent eye appeared.

. . . which also happens to describe a certain ancient unspeakable cosmic horror. Coincidence? I think not.

Remembering Chris Hondros

For me this was the iconic photo of the Iraq debacle. It just said it all.

He was a superior, fearless, possibly reckless photographer. He also had the eye.

Here was a photographer who could attend to the details of composition and lighting, while conveying volumes with elegant simplicity, sometimes under fire and always under circumstances few can comprehend.

Excellent remembrance and photo montage from, of all newspapers, the WSJ.

Late update: the one piece of good news conveyed in the New York Times article about Samar Hassan, the poor unfortunate photographed above, is that the U.S. brass - all the way up to the Joint Chiefs - considered the photo to be a problem. Would like to think there were some sleepless nights in northern Virginia.

Later update: here is the Guardian's retrospective.

Later update: fixed the links.

Justice delayed

The DOJ OPR were prevented from referring this piece of work to the Bar for disciplinary action - she received immunity in return for her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Fortunately, the Virginia State Bar have taken matters into their own hands. It's a start.

Meanwhile, John Yoo is back in the media, yet again, complaining that Obama killed Osama because Obama didn't have the cajones to torture someone whose name rhymes with his own.

And, Yoo's former go-to girl is doing quite nicely, thank you very much, sitting pretty in her appellate practice in a top-end Washington law firm.