My thoughts on Dennis Tito’s press conference yesterday, over at PJMedia.
[Update a while later]
Hmmmm…the post seems to have disappeared. I’ll bug them to find out what happened.
[Update a few minutes later]
I’ve sent an email to find out what happened, but meanwhile, here‘s Marcia Smith’s (semi-skeptical) report.
[Update a while later]
OK, it seems to be back up now.
Is it time for him or her to step forward?
I have mixed feelings. As some commenters note, the retribution from the climate liars could be harsh, and it’s useful to have the mole in place. It would be delicious, though, if it was Briffa, from a combination of an attack of conscience and the attacks by Mann.
Thoughts from Conrad Black:
American prosecutors win 99.5 percent of their cases, a much higher percentage than those in other civilized countries; that 97 percent of them are won without trial, because of the plea-bargain system in which inculpatory evidence is extorted from witnesses in exchange for immunity from prosecution, including for perjury; that the U.S. has six to twelve times as many incarcerated people per capita as do Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, or the United Kingdom, comparably prosperous democracies; that the U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population, 25 percent of its incarcerated people, and half of its academically qualified lawyers, who take about 10 percent of U.S. GDP; that prosecutors enjoy very uneven advantages in procedure and an absolute immunity for misconduct; that they routinely seize targets’ money on false affidavits alleging ill-gotten gains so they cannot defend themselves by paying rapacious American lawyers, most of whom in criminal-defense matters are just a fig leaf to provide a pretense of a genuine day in court before blind justice; that the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights that are the basis of the American claim to being a society of laws don’t really exist in practice; and that far too many judges are ex-prosecutors who have not entirely shed the almost universal prosecutorial will to crucify.
But other than that, it’s great.
Instapundit has a big roundup of links to the Bob Woodward story.
You know, the last time a paranoid socialist president with an enemies list crossed swords with Woodward, it didn’t end well for him. And the media’s hackery/flackery in the service of The One has never been more fully on display.
[Update a while later]
I do have to say that I find Woodward’s naivety in thinking that the president wouldn’t approve of this a little disquieting.
[Update a few minutes later]
That noted right winger Ron Fournier got similar treatment. At some point, the floodgates might open, at least for those few reporters who still imagine themselves to have any integrity whatsoever. I’ll be there are a lot of stories like this out there. And I have to say, I’m not really surprised that it’s Gene Sperling. He always strikes me as a little weasel whenever I see him spinning.
[Update a while later]
A dissenting view from Kevin Hassett: Gene Sperling is no thug.
I wonder who Fournier’s interactions were with? Certainly Plouffe hasn’t covered himself in glory here.
[Update a while later]
Fournier expands on his previous account. It’s still ambiguous, at least to me, whether he’s saying that this is the same WH official who “threatened” Woodward. But I just find this kind of thing mind blowing:
Reporting by Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered Watergate misdeeds and led to the resignation of President Nixon. My tweet was not intended to compare Nixon to Obama (there is no reason to doubt Obama’s integrity — period) but rather to compare the attack to the press strategies of all the presidents’ men.
…This can’t be what Obama wants. He must not know how thin-skinned and close-minded his staff can be to criticism. “I have the greatest respect and admiration for what you do,” Obama told reporters a year ago. “I know sometimes you like to give me a hard time, and I certainly like to return the favor, but I never forget that our country depends on you.”
Emphasis mine.
“…no reason to doubt Obama’s integrity”? Really? No reason at all?
“This can’t be what Obama wants”? Really?
The fish rots from the head down, Ron.
[Update a while later]
Heh: “Washington is the only place on earth where Gene Sperling and Rahm Emanuel can successfully bully people.”
Was it worth it?
Hagel’s errors about the innovations and strategic benefits the surge would provide and his unwillingness to revisit that view suggest our new defense secretary doesn’t have a clue about the key element of 21st-century war and preparedness — counterinsurgency.
But his failure to understand the surge, then and now, pales in comparison to his disastrous ideas about the key foreign-policy challenge facing the United States: a nuclear Iran.
Hagel is and always has been fine with a nuclear Iran, even though Obama says his administration is not. We’re told one of the reasons Obama chose Hagel was that he appreciated his heterodox views on Iran.
It was incumbent upon those of us who believe unthinkable catastrophe will result from a nuclear mullahcracy (and one whose leaders speak of making Israel disappear) to kick up a fuss about Hagel, if for no other reason than to prevent the administration from subtly and quietly downshifting into a policy of “containment.”
Perhaps most important, the nation and the world had to know there was a serious body of opinion in the United States that would not sit idly by in the face of Hagel’s long history of classic anti-Semitic insinuations about Israel’s supposed secret power over Washington’s decision-making process.
This is the worse foreign-policy team since…ever?
It’s achieving an apparent miracle:
If these warnings, and others coming out of the Obama administration, are to be believed, NASA has pulled off an impressive, if not impossible, feat. But on the other hand, are we really to believe it is the only agency capable of doing so?
I’m going to be supremely cynical here, and suggest that Bolden isn’t being pressured to do this as other agency heads are, because no one cares whether or not NASA shuts down. It doesn’t cause any political pain, as some of the other measures (e.g., TSA reductions) will, so he’s being left alone to manage as best he can.
He always gets paid:
When he left NYU, Lew received what he describes as “a one-time severance payment upon my departure.” He wasn’t fired, usually the occasion for severance pay. He simply left and got paid for the act of leaving. Hey, that’s Jack Lew — he gets paid when he stays, and he gets paid when he goes.
He went to Citigroup, which NYU had made its primary private lender for student loans in exchange for a cut of those loans. (Coincidences happen to everyone, including Jack Lew.) At Citi, Lew established beyond a doubt his expertise at getting paid. In 2008, as the bank nearly blew up and laid off one-seventh of its employees, Lew ran its disastrous Alternative Investments unit — and got paid $1.1 million.
The bank had to be bailed out by the federal government, but it couldn’t stop paying Jack Lew. The journalist Jonathan Weil of Bloomberg has unearthed Lew’s contract at Citi. It said, reasonably enough, that he wouldn’t get his “guaranteed incentive and retention award” if he left the company. It made an exception, though, if Lew left to get “a full-time high level position with the United States government or regulatory body.”
He shouldn’t have been worth the money (and in many instances, probably wasn’t). But in a corporatist government, this is what happens.
Twenty years later, and we have learned nothing from it.
One way would be to stop lying.
But he can’t, of course — it’s his political stock in trade.
[Update a few minutes later]
This seems related, somehow. Remember when Obama said that he wouldn’t add one dime to the deficit? Well, he was right — the GAO now says that ObamaCare will add sixty-two trillion of them.
A screed from Lileks.