Month: May 2009

About Those Photos

DiA has questions about the Pentagon's fishy denial:

Could it be a non-denial denial on the part of the Pentagon? "None of the photos in question depict the images that are described in that article," says Bryan Whitman, a deputy assistant secretary of defence. Are "the photos in question" different from the ones the press are referring to? If so, it seems a bit beside the point.

A reader also reminds me of what Lindsey Graham said five years ago:

"Graham, speaking after Rumsfeld's Senate testimony, suggested that material in at least one tape held by Defense Department investigators could be by far the most-damaging yet to the U.S. military effort in Iraq and its prestige around the world. "The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges,'' Graham said to reporters.

It's remarkable how soon they forget. Bush's refusal to accept Rumsfeld's resignation on the spot may have been one of the worst decisions of his presidency (although there's some competition).

Bush v Cheney

Interesting signs of a divide on how to respond to a new era, at least:

A former White House official under Bush said some White House alumni wish Cheney would cool it. “We all sort of feel the same way: It’s his right to do it,” the former official said. “We don’t necessarily think it’s a good idea." The former official said the difference in approach reflects “a division that stretches back pretty far.”

The AWOL MSM

A reader writes:

Thank you for the quote from Carl Levin about Cheney. What is frustrating is that what he is saying is not news; the Senate report has been out for months.  In all these interviews Cheney is giving, why has no one – NO ONE – brought up this report in their questioning of him?  Is this what our media has come to?  If so, then good riddance to them, at least in the realm of national political reporting.

I feel your pain. The fawning way in which interviewers have failed to challenge Cheney on his factual claims with respect to torture has been depressing. He still intimidates them – and picks the meekest ones for interviews.

A Big Victory For Equality?, Ctd

John Culhane argues with a Dish reader:

I think the nub of our disagreement is this: I’m concerned about the constitutional implications of the court’s willingness to jettison the principle of true equality based on a simple majority vote (even though, it must be said, there is some precedential support for its holding), while this reader sees things from a practical standpoint: All of the rights are still intact, and any effort to further limit them will have to be carefully crafted. Moreover, the court will read any restrictions very strictly, and might even be unwilling to support further compromises to equality.

This reader is probably right as to most of the above. But as I’ve stated, I don’t know (nor can anyone) how far the court would be willing to go in supporting more far-reaching restrictions on the rights of the GLBT community, including revoking domestic partnership protections.

But I see no real move to strip gay couples of such protections in California; and I see plenty of evidence that one result of this debate has been to establish domestic partnerships as the worst option. Without the marriage battle, that would never have happened. It's all good, even when it's bad. Patience … and focus.