The Lady Speaks

Limited free time means I haven’t been able to work on the blog as often as I’d like, plus the “primary fatigue” that set in made me want to start posting recipes rather than digging in to write anything substantive. Unfortunately, this also meant I stopped posting the FAWS and updating “Counting the Cost.” I may not get to posting much else on a regular basis, but I’ll try to remember to keep these going. –Jenn

War Pigs — Black Sabbath
1970

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of deaths construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds, oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait till their judgement day comes, yeah!

Now in darkness, world stops turning
As the war machine keeps burning
No more war pigs of the power
Hand of God has sturck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings
All right now!

From Political Ticker, via Tennessee Guerilla Women:

“Do you know how difficult it is for women to stand up and say we are the best at anything? The Democratic Party has to know that women are the core, women have to be at the table and women are going to be heard as we continue in these contests until they finally end.”
– Hillary Rodham Clinton

I’m in a rather interesting mood. Pissed as hell and depressed.

I’m starting to allow my heart to realize that Hillary may not win the nomination. She’s not giving up, though, so I’m not either. Hope springs eternal, and I’m going to keep fighting for her as long as she’s willing to keep fighting.

However, I’d be stupid not to look to the future and ask myself just what I’m going to do come November. The question on everyone’s minds is: “Will the Hillary supporters become Obama supporters once the nomination is decided?”

In my mind, there are two questions: Can I support the Democratic nominee if it’s not Hillary, and can I continue to align myself the Democratic party at all after witnessing, reading, or listening to hundreds (or thousands) of misogynistic attacks on Hillary and her supporters by other members of the party ?

I can’t answer for anyone else, and I will make no attempt to dissuade anyone from their own decisions about this, but — at this point, unless something completely changes my mind between now and November — I’ll vote for Barack Obama if he’s the nominee. Any Democratic candidate is - theoretically - better than any Republican. [Theoretically meaning: what's happened since January 2007 that is different from what happened between 2001 and 2007? Besides more hearings.]

However.

I will no longer be a registered Democrat. I am leaving the party and those members of it who have used hateful language against a Democratic candidate and against fellow Democratic voters who had the temerity not to jump on their bandwagon.

June 2008 will mark the 20th anniversary of my becoming a registered voter. I have not missed an election since I became eligible to vote, and I have always been a Democrat. Until now.

I’m done.

But apparently, that’s just fine with certain parts of the party who tell me they don’t need my vote. Just ask Donna Brazile.

I’m just one of those typical, white, blue-collar, traditional Democratic, over-30 but not quite 40, women to whom $30 in gas savings means a lot (like, a month’s worth of one of my prescriptions, or one month’s phone bill payment, or 15 days’ worth of school lunches for one of my younger kids), who wants clear and direct answers about how a candidate intends to bring our troops home (and when!), solve the economic crisis, restore America’s reputation abroad, close Guantanamo and end America’s human rights abuses, help families who are losing their homes, end our oil dependence, secure women’s full reproductive rights, create equality in the workplace (and every place) for women, minorities, GLBTQs, create jobs, end our financial dependence on China - among many, many other vital issues. In other words: no one important or anything.

Yes, yes, I hear the cries of: “She’s pandering!”

Fuck yes, pander to me! Over the past 7 years, we’ve watched politicians pander to one - and only one - constituency: the rich and powerful. Now — Goddess forbid! — someone wants to pander to the poor, the middle-class, the families, the small businesses, the women? Well, hell yeah!

But Hope and Change© apparently means not pandering to the people in this country who are struggling and need relief from the high cost of food, gasoline, utilities, and every other goddamned thing out there. Hope and Change© aren’t about helping those who — forget making ends meet — can’t even get the ends within sight of one another.

So, when it comes time to cast my ballot, if the nominee is Barack Obama, I’ll suck it up, hold my nose, and press the switch - as an Independent. And I’ll probably, in my bitterness, proclaim as I do so, “May the Goddess have mercy on my soul.” (Yes. I am bitter. I’m bitter because I actually thought Democrats were the party of women, of labor unions, of blue-collar laborers, of the underdogs of society, and boy, I’ve been proven wrong this year.)

But between now and the nomination, I’m going to light my candle, and I’m going to use my teaspoon, and no matter how this turns out, I’m going to know I did my damnedest to elect the first female President of the United States of America.

Mildred Loving passed away today.

From the Associated Press:

Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide, has died, her daughter said Monday.

[snip]

Loving and her white husband, Richard, changed history in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their right to marry. The ruling struck down laws banning racially mixed marriages in at least 17 states.

“There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection clause,” the court ruled in a unanimous decision.

[snip]

[...] she and Loving got married in Washington in 1958, when she was 18. Mildred told the AP she didn’t realize it was illegal.

“I think my husband knew,” Mildred said. “I think he thought (if) we were married, they couldn’t bother us.”

But they were arrested a few weeks after they returned to Central Point, their hometown in rural Caroline County north of Richmond. They pleaded guilty to charges of “cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth,” according to their indictments.

They avoided jail time by agreeing to leave Virginia — the only home they’d known — for 25 years. They moved to Washington for several years, then launched a legal challenge by writing to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who referred the case to the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a public statement last year, on the 40th anniversary of the Loving decision, Mildred said, in part:

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.

Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

At the time the Supreme Court handed down its decision, nearly 80% of Americans disagreed with it and used Biblical justifications for doing so. Forty-one years later, those same kinds of Biblical justifications are being used against same-sex couples. And they are just as wrong and just as ignorant as they were then.

I pray we see the day when all those who love are free to join their lives together.

Thank you Mildred and Richard.

Blessed be.

I’m still tired, and the flu…ague…flu-like illness I felt coming on before my trip to New Hampshire has definitely sprouted. (NH is a beautiful state, with incredibly friendly people, but damn! Cold, rain, and possibilities of “snowstahms” on the first weekend in May?! And did I mention cold? I never thought of PA as a warm, “southern” climate till now.)

So, I’m busy feeling feverish while wracked with chills. Therefore, you shall have linkys!

Death toll in Myanmar at 4000 and could reach 10,000 or more. [CNN]

Why does Dick Cheney hate whales? [MSNBC]

Federal Air Marshals being denied boarding by airlines because they have the same name as terr’ists on the [giant useless stupid] no-fly list. [Boing-Boing]

Austrian father who imprisoned and raped his daughter for 24 years, forcing her to bear 7 children, is going to use the insanity defense. [CNN]

Toxic goo from Superfund sites being used as a fertilizer. [oh goody!] [Natasha at Pacific Views]

And now… I’m going back to bed.

This is part two of my series on how the wasteful, destructive agriculture polices of the last 8-12 years — also known as “Make Money By Not Feeding America” — has affected the cost of the food we purchase. Part One is here.

In Part One, I spoke of wheat and how in the rush to grow corn for ethanol, it’s being pushed aside - which drives up prices at the mills, which then drives up the price at the retail level.

Today: Corn.

In the rush to find cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels for our vehicles, ethanol was latched onto by the Bush administration. As a result nearly a quarter of all corn grown is being diverted from human and animal food stocks and heading for ethanol plants.

As we see with wheat, prices are going up. In this case, the price rise is first seen as the price-per-bushel - the amount the corn farmer is paid. That drives up costs at the farm and farm-factory level - where it’s used as feedstock cattle and poultry. Then prices rise again at the retail level. We’ve seen a huge rise in the cost of eggs, meat, and milk and other dairy products as a result.

Meanwhile…back at the farm, it’s difficult to turn away from devoting your corn to ethanol production with prices per bushel on the rise.

From the Washington Post, via MSNBC: [my emphasis throughout]

Across the country, ethanol plants are swallowing more and more of the nation’s corn crop. This year, about a quarter of U.S. corn will go to feeding ethanol plants instead of poultry or livestock. That has helped farmers like Johnson, but it has boosted demand — and prices — for corn at the same time global grain demand is growing.

And it has linked food and fuel prices just as oil is rising to new records, pulling up the price of anything that can be poured into a gasoline tank. “The price of grain is now directly tied to the price of oil,” says Lester Brown, president of Earth Policy Institute, a Washington research group. “We used to have a grain economy and a fuel economy. But now they’re beginning to fuse.”

Oh, and thank your Democratic Congress too.

Rising food prices have given Congress and the White House a sudden case of legislative indigestion. In 2005, the Republican-led Congress and President Bush backed a bill that required widespread ethanol use in motor fuels. Just four months ago, the Democratic-led Congress passed and Bush signed energy legislation that boosted the mandate for minimum corn-based ethanol use to 15 billion gallons, about 10 percent of motor fuel, by 2015. It was one of the most popular parts of the bill, appealing to farm-state lawmakers and to those worried about energy security and eager to substitute a home-grown energy source for a portion of U.S. petroleum imports. To help things along, motor-fuel blenders receive a 51 cent subsidy for every gallon of corn-based ethanol used through the end of 2010; this year, production could reach 8 billion gallons.

There’s just one problem…well, several problems:

Although ethanol was once promoted as a way to slow climate change, a study published in Science magazine Feb. 29 concluded that greenhouse-gas emissions from corn and even cellulosic ethanol “exceed or match those from fossil fuels and therefore produce no greenhouse benefits.” By encouraging an expansion of acreage, the study added, the use of U.S. cropland for ethanol could make climate conditions dramatically worse. And the runoff from increased use of fertilizers on expanded acreage would compound damage to waterways all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

Development specialists have also joined the fray. “While many are worrying about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs, and it is getting more and more difficult every day,” World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick said in a recent speech.

And, the future for food prices isn’t looking too good:

Two leading oil pipeline companies are exploring the feasibility of building a $3 billion ethanol pipeline, the first of its kind, to link Iowa and other parts of the Midwest with motor-fuel markets in the East. It would carry 3.65 billion gallons a year and give another industry a vested interest in maintaining high ethanol output. Because of this domestic demand, Iowa’s exports of corn are expected to shrink to less than half of current levels in the next couple of years. Nationwide, corn stockpiles are dwindling.

[snip]

… Iowa produces more eggs, 13.5 billion, than any other state. And chickens, like capons, mostly eat corn feed. The Charles City ethanol plant alone consumes three-quarters as much corn as the entire Iowa egg industry.

[snip]

“We don’t have to make fuel out of corn and soybeans, but we do have to feed animals,” says Kevin Vinchattle, executive director of the Iowa Egg Council. “We’re going to be right there bidding for feedstocks and making sure that we have the highest-quality feed available. We just don’t have an alternative.”

What we really need in this country is a responsible, sustainable, non-destructive, non-wasteful agriculture policy. We absolutely do need to support our family farmers. But, we should only support those family farmers who are contributing to the feeding of America.

It is time to end the subsidies to corporate entities that run factory farms, the owners of said corporate entities, and those whose product is going for any use other than feed or food.

What we also need is a responsible energy plan, because — thanks to the ethanol boom - the two are intertwined.

So, you go into any grocery store, bakery, dessert shop and think, “Holy hell. This stuff’s getting expensive! WTF?”

Naturally, we assume fuel prices have done it all, but part of the price increase is decades of wasteful, destructive agriculture policies. Wheat prices are soaring (yayz for the commodities brokers!) and the number of acres devoted to wheat has dropped by 24 million — or just over 25% since 1981.

From the Washington Post, via MSNBC

U.S. farmers are expected to plant about 64 million acres of wheat this year, down from a high of 88 million in 1981. In Kansas, wheat acreage has declined by a third since the mid-1980s, and nationwide, there is now less wheat in grain bins than at any time since World War II — only about enough to supply the world for four days. This occurs as developing countries with some of the poorest populations are rapidly increasing their wheat imports.

[snip]

U.S. wheat yields per acre have increased little in two decades, partly because commercial seed companies have all but abandoned investments in improved varieties, preferring to focus on the more profitable corn and soybeans. Subtle warming changes in the climate and the recent availability of new plant varieties that thrive in cold, dry conditions have pushed the corn belt north and west.

[snip]

In 1996, Congress gave a strong nudge to these changes by passing legislation allowing wheat growers for the first time to switch to other crops and still collect government subsidies. The result is that farmers received federal wheat payments last year on 15 million acres more than were planted. [my emphasis]

Oh goody. So, Americans - in the form of taxes - are paying farmers not to produce wheat and we’re paying through the nose whenever we buy wheat products because we’re paying farmers not to produce wheat. Lovely.

And this isn’t a problem for America only. Developing nations count on us to supply them with cheap wheat to cushion their own production. Except that other wheat-producing nations are stopping exports in order to conserve their harvests for their citizens. Add in the falling value of the dollar:

The U.S. government stopped holding large stocks of wheat in the 1980s, but the United States, nearly alone among wheat producers, allows countries to shop here even when others have shut off exports.

This free-trade policy resulted in a run on the 2007 U.S. wheat crop this year by foreign buyers taking advantage of the favorable dollar exchange rate to stock up, even as Ukraine, Argentina and Kazakhstan blocked exports.

Those of you who feel smug about driving your ethanol-fueled vehicle? Stop.

The ethanol boom, in particular, is providing strong incentives to keep former wheat acres in corn. Within a year, Braaten will be able to truck his corn to three modern ethanol refineries, one already built and two others near completion. These huge distilleries will need corn from an area about the size of Rhode Island, and many of the acres will come at the expense of such traditional crops as wheat and sugar beets.

And, of course, corn seeds are a money maker for the corporations.

These seeds are protected by patents and licensing agreements, requiring farmers to buy a new batch each year. That produces strong financial incentives for the companies .

[snip]

Even then, there is no assurance that farmers will buy the seed year after year. That is because of the nature of the wheat plant, an unusually complex organism originating in the Middle East thousands of years ago. Unlike hybrid corn, which loses its productivity after the first year, seeds from improved wheat varieties can be saved and replanted for several years without significant loss of yield.

But in the end, under the rule of the Bush Corpos, feeding America is just another way to make a fortune. Unless, of course, you’re the farmer.

Unfortunately for America, few will notice there’s a problem until they’re standing in breadlines.

Lambert at Corrente says:

Since Barack Obama likes Jay-Z so much, and songs like “99 Problems (But a Bitch Ain’t One)” and “Dirt Off Your Shoulder,” I think it’s only fair that we help her pick out some theme music.

He and the commenters list their choices, including Aretha Franklin’s Respect and Gloria Gaynor’s I Will Survive.

My choices are:

I Am Woman by Helen Reddy

Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves by the Eurythmics and Aretha Franklin

or - my personal favorite - This One’s For the Girls by Martina McBride.

So, what songs would you choose for Hillary’s campaign?

If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, it is that human rights are women’s rights…. And women’s rights are human rights.

– Hillary Rodham Clinton
September 5, 1995
Fourth World Conference on Women

That is all.

I have been on the fence for some time now as to which candidate I would support in the upcoming primary. My preferred candidate, John Edwards, left the race before Super Tuesday. Those who were left didn’t impress me much.

So I kept reading, kept studying. I listened to the opinions of those I trust, asked myself what “features” I want in a candidate, and was bombarded with blogs voicing one opinion or the other.

As time has gone by, I’ve found myself increasingly frustrated by the sexism and misogyny directed at our first viable female Presidential candidate. While I didn’t agree with many of her positions, and certainly was angry about several of her Senate votes - notably the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment - I was just as disappointed by Barack Obama.

Actually, I’ve been more disappointed by Obama. Hillary only had to convince me she wasn’t as bad as I thought. Obama convinced me almost from the very beginning of his Presidential campaign, but - over the past 16 months or so - his lack of concrete policy details, and his supporters’ eagerness to revile Hillary Clinton in sexist and misogynistic language as well as accuse her of nearly every evil, short of actually calling her the Anti-Christ, turned me away and kept me away.

In the beginning, I was thrilled by his candidacy. I read The Audacity of Hope. I paid attention to what he was saying, and I tried to see exactly where he stood on issues that concern me.

And that might have been the problem. My paying attention, that is. Because the more Barack Obama spoke, the less inclined to vote for him I became. He has some great soundbites, slogans, and ear-worms, but very little to offer, other than the now-ubiquitous Hope and Change.

Hope and Change alone aren’t going to restore America’s image around the world. Hope and Change alone aren’t going to end the war in Iraq. Hope and Change alone aren’t going to insure the uninsured or make healthcare costs more affordable. Hope and Change alone aren’t going to reduce emissions and slow global warming. Hope and Change alone aren’t going to provide desperately-needed jobs. Hope and Change alone aren’t going to protect human rights. Hope and Change alone aren’t going to stop foreclosures. Hope and Change alone aren’t going to strengthen the dollar, reduce the trade deficit, or pay off America’s trillion-dollar debts.

I want a detailed plan that tells me how a candidate is going to deal with the very serious problems facing America. I don’t have to agree with the nitty-gritty so much as I want to see what a candidate considers important, and I want to see what their goals are, and what steps they want to take to accomplish them.

I want to know that a great deal of what I consider important - as a mother, as a woman, as a Pennsylvanian, as a citizen of the US - is also important to my candidate.

So.

Here we are a week before the Pennsylvania primary, and I’m not going to flip a coin or write in John Edwards. Both of which I’d considered, right up until Obama told a bunch of rich donors that we in small-town America are bitter and cling to our “guns, religion, and antipathy” due to the failures of our government.

[Hell, yes, I was insulted, and my choices became one fewer: Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. Certainly my vote isn't going to the guy who said frustration with our government leads small-town people to guns, God, and hatred. Perhaps said frustration doesn't lead to said clinging in larger, more urban settings? Except, of course, that wouldn't explain the amount of violence, megachurches, and gang warfare one finds in the average American city.]

But in the last two hours, my decision became clear.

What happened in two hours, you ask? Only that I read this via eRiposte at The Left Coaster: Hillary Clinton’s speech to the Newspaper Association of America.

In particular, the portion of the speech in which she talks about what she will do in her first 100 days as President: [all emphasis mine]

But the question before us is deeper than how the next president will restore our government and our Constitution. The question is how the next president will employ our government. I am here and I am running for president because I have seen the promise of America and I do understand the promise of the presidency and on day one I will bring my hard won experience, whatever strength and knowledge I posses to fulfill that promise. I will start by trying to live up to the model described by Teddy Roosevelt - “All that in me lies to do will be done to make my work a success.” And I plan to hit the ground running starting on day one and throughout my first 100 days.

During that time I will call on congress to send to my desk the bills the president vetoed, from supporting stem cell research to expanding Children’s Health Care and I will sign them, allowing scientists to better explore the promise of new cures for disease- diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes and so much else. And we will provide health insurance for millions more of our children as a down payment on achieving health care for all Americans with no exceptions.

My administration will call together meeting of mortgage lenders, banks, community organizations and regulators to negotiate an immediate freeze on foreclosures, because so many Americans are hurting and the projection is that more than 2 million families will be foreclosed on this year. I will call for a timeout on new trade agreements and review all existing trade agreements and I will call on Canada and Mexico to work with me to renegotiate NAFTA.

My budget to congress will restore fiscal sanity while cutting taxes for middle class families to the tune of 100 billion dollars a year, ending tax breaks for oil companies, drug companies, insurance companies, Wall Street and others to the tune of 55 billion dollars a year.

I will work with Congress to introduce a comprehensive immigration bill.

My administration convene a summit within 100 days to negotiate a new climate change treaty to replace Kyoto and one that includes China, India and other rapidly developing and very big green house gas emitting nations. I will work with the Congress to submit a comprehensive energy bill that will move us toward ending our dependence on foreign oil and increasing the percentage of renewable fuels we use to produce electricity.

I will overturn the global gag rule to allow nongovernmental organizations to practice free speech and use other funding sources to provide women with access to the full range of reproductive health care around the world.

I will call a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and demand that the Pentagon draw up plans to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq responsibly and carefully starting within 60 days of my inauguration. I will reach out to the rest of the world and ask distinguished Americans of both parties to be emissaries on our behalf traveling across the globe telling both governments and people that the united states is willing once again to work with you to try to find common ground on our problems from global warming to global terrorism to global epidemics.

I will sign executive orders ending the war on science, ordering the closure of Guantanamo, reversing many of the anti-labor provisions that President Bush adopted and looking very clearly at what we have to do to rebuild a strong and prosperous middle class in our country.

In short, starting from day one, the Bush-Cheney era will be over in name and in practice. We are fortunate in our country that we get to overturn our government peacefully and thoroughly. The question is the path we select at such an important juncture. I know this campaign has gone on a long time, but elections do end and when the campaigns conclude and the banners are town down and the speeches are finally finished, all that’s left is the choice we have made.

Come election day, I will be casting my vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Two things running through my head this morning:

First up: the Obama gaffe, non-gaffe, truth-telling, or whatever it’s being called now.

It’s been rather disheartening this weekend to see so many left-wing blogs telling me, “It’s true! Small-town rural people are just racist, homophobic, xenophobic ignorants who turn to their guns or their gods rather than voting for someone who just wants to help them.”

Or, even more fun, the “if you’re not bitter, you’re not paying attention and aren’t doing enough” group.

Spare me.

Spin it how you want. Tell me his “inflection” in the video makes a difference. Tell me all about how we white, rural, working-class, voters do vote against our own interests. It doesn’t change my opinion of what he said.

Yes, I did read the entire statement, not just the paragraph posted in Obama Insults Pennsylvanians. And I read it again. And yes, I still believe he was, in effect, calling us low-class white trash who won’t vote for him because we’re too bitter about our economic status to vote for anyone who isn’t whiter than snow and doesn’t run on a “Guns, Gods, and Gays” platform.

I still believe that he was trying to explain to a bunch of rich donors just why he wasn’t doing as well as expected here, and his explanation to them is, “See these blue-collar folks are just too bitter and too dumb to understand that I’m all about Change and Hope© and they seem to actually want policies and positions and information. They don’t understand, because they’re dumb, rural, white trash, that I’m all about Change and Hope© and part of that is not saying anything that isn’t about Change and Hope©.”

But, apparently, to say so - to believe that this candidate insulted my state and my fellow Pennsylvanians - is also a white trash, homo- and xenophobic, racist belief.

Wow.

I have to say I feel a little less welcome in a few of my favorite blogs today, after reading all the “It’s true and people who are insulted are just too dumb and too bitter to understand it” comments from people who do not live in rural Pennsylvania.

Gee, thanks, for helping me see the light. It’s good to know just how many blogs and their commenters actually believe they are better than those of us living in small-town America because they’re more “enlightened,” more “sophisticated,” or just plain smarter than we bigoted trash.

I should point out that in 2000, PA was one of only 20 states (plus DC) that went for Gore. In 2004, we were one of only 19 states (plus DC) that went for Kerry.

Second: the Bush-approved-torture non-flap:

Yep, I am well aware of what happened Friday, that our President - a man who stood before us twice and vowed to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” - admitted that he approved torture.

And, I am well aware that the MSM has more or less ignored the same in order to cover the “blow to the Obama campaign.”

Why haven’t I said anything? Well, for one, because there are far smarter people who know far more about this who have already said everything. Short of cribbing all of Emptywheel’s posts on the subject, what I have to say on it amounts to this:

“Son of a bitch! He admitted, on television, that his legal team created justifications for torture, that members of his Cabinet (Cheney, Ashcroft, Rice, etc) knew and approved of said tortures, that he knew and approved said tortures, that human beings were tortured as a result — in contravention of the Geneva Convention and American law.

There is now absolutely zero doubt that he, members of his Cabinet, and his legal eagles are as guilty of crimes against humanity as any Nazi prosecuted at Nuremberg.

And the response from America was… *crickets*

The fucking media ignores it because Obama can’t keep his foot from his mouth.

Heckova job, BushCo!”

That is my response.

I could have made a post of it but, as always, Digby says it better:

I thought I was long past the point of being shocked at anything the Bush administration did. They suspended the constitution after 9/11 and set forth a series of legal opinions that said the president can do anything he deems necessary to “protect the country.” Once you truly absorb that fact, it’s hard to be emotionally affected by anything else you learn.

But I was wrong. This shocks me. The president of the United States casually admits on television that he approved of his national security team personally deciding which specific torture techniques should be used against prisoners:

[snip]

The vice president, national security advisor and members of the president’s cabinet sat around the white house “choreographing” the torture and the president approved it. I have to say that even in my most vivid imaginings about this torture scheme it didn’t occur to me that the highest levels of the cabinet were personally involved (except Cheney and Rumsfeld, of course) much less that we would reach a point where the president of the United States would shrug his shoulders and say he approved.