Paul Harvey
 

                              FIRST RADIO IDIOT

Michelle Goldberg at Daily Beast decided she would take the time to read Sarah Palin’s book.

Evidently Ms. Goldberg found a section in this mighty literary tome dedicated to feminism:

It seems that the mainstream reaction to the latest from Wikileaks has been something along the lines of, "this isn't new," by which the speaker means either that they already knew this stuff or always suspected it and that there's no value in having their suspicions confirmed by evidence.  If the speaker already knew, it just means they're fine keeping the public in the dark about how foreign policy is conducted.  But the second sentiment, along the lines of "didn't you always think Karzai was corrupt?" or "Didn't you always suspect that the Saudis would love for us to bomb Iran?" is reall

Millionaire and billionaire Dagbloggers take note: if you die before Dec. 31st, 2010, as Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming) claims some of her constituents may do to avoid taxes, you can RIP knowing Uncle Sam did not get one cent of your hard earned fortunes, your designated heirs got it all.

Who are these people? These so called Tea Party followers of Sarah Palin that support her with so much enthusiasm.  Contrary to the caricature that those on the left and some on the right like to paint them, they are not the ignorant hicks of some back water towns that don't even have television yet.  Or escapees from a lunatic asylum.  They are in fact common folk from  the small towns in the Midwest and parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania and Kentucky.

The recent takeover reported this month, of a formerly US run Iraqi prison, by Moqtada al Sadr supporters, who have just been brought into the Maliki government, combined with the reading of a dispatch from Ambassador Hill from December, 2009, leads one to surmise that Iran is moving to consolidate its influence in Iraq, including the widespread use of death squads:

 Republicans are opposed to New START, but the question is why? Well, listen to Jon Kyl, who was on Meet the Press this morning, he does try but ultimately fails to offer any reason for his opposition. I guess he is leading a filibuster in order to stop any discussion of ratification of the Treaty. As noted in the first comment by NCD, below.  He attempts to justify killing the New START ratification process. Have things changed so drastically since 1982, when there was basic agreement around the world on the need to reduce nuclear proliferation.

The object of this diary is twofold:  a) to show that Dylan Ratigan at MSNBC does in fact cover the issues of the banking and fraudclosure  travesty; and b) to simplify some of this for financial neophytes like myself.  It’s increasingly important that more of us learn what’s going on, and what’s at stake as these issues are either papered over or systemically made right for people, not for banks.  I’m sure that the things I have gotten wrong here, you will let me hear about.  ;o)

Thanks. There is no reason to repeat why this is a great holiday, whatever its supposed derivation, or the more accurate and quite understandable basis for it. It is, in the end, a day for us to become one: an entire nation eating roughly the same foods and celebrating together, as best we can.

--Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State
Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC, November 24, 2010

The relevant excerpt:

QUESTION: WikiLeaks.
MR. CROWLEY: Last question. One more, then I got to go.

QUESTION: WikiLeaks.

QUESTION: Is it coming down this week? Are you expecting it this weekend? Do you have any idea of what you can on the record, off on background, or off the record --

MR. CROWLEY: Last question on WikiLeaks. We – no, no. I literally got to go. All right. On WikiLeaks --

QUESTION: This is on the record?

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah, sure. We are very mindful of the announcement that WikiLeaks made earlier this week, that there is a release of documents pending at some point in the future. If the past is prologue, that would mean that certain news organizations may well already be in possession of specific documents. So we continue to work through, as we have throughout this process, evaluating both the material that we think was previously leaked from government sources to WikiLeaks, and we continue to make clear that this is harmful to our national security. It does put lives at risk. It does put national interests at risk.

It’s hard for us to give you any kind of assessment of what the potential impact is, because we actually don’t know what is going to be released. It is our expectation – we’ve known all along that WikiLeaks has in its possession State Department cables. We are prepared if this upcoming tranche of documents includes State Department cables. We are in touch with our posts around the world. They have begun the process of notifying governments that release of documents is possible in the near future. Many of you are aware, we have had similar conversations with members of the Hill to let them know what we are prepared for. This is going to be unhelpful.

This is – without getting into any discussion of any specific cables, the kinds of cables that posts send to Washington are – they’re classified. They involve discussions that we’ve had with government officials, with private citizens. They contain analysis. They contain a record of the day-to-day diplomatic activity that our personnel undertake. And this back and forth between government, the government of the United States and governments around the world, it is diplomacy in action. It is part of the system through which we collaborate and cooperate with other countries. Inherent in this day-to-day action is trust that we can convey our perspective to other governments in confidence and that they can convey their perspective on events to us. It helps inform us of what’s happening around the world. It informs our – the policies that we undertake on behalf of the American people.

And when this confidence is betrayed and ends up on the front pages of newspapers or lead stories on television and radio it has an impact. We decry what has happened. These revelations are harmful to the United States and our interests. They are going to create tension in our relationships between our diplomats and our friends around the world. We wish that this would not happen. But we are, obviously, prepared for the possibility that it will.

QUESTION: And you’ve notified Congress this week?

MR. CROWLEY: Yes. 

Also see: