Time: Pelosi is probably right [about CIA]

Is this an invented the internet thing? The same rightwingers and Obama may be using the same techniques that were used against Gore and the Clintons: misquote to confuse the issue and make it seem their target (in this case Pelosi) has said something terrible.

By this one charge against Pelosi, they take attention away from those who certainly did or commanded torture, and focus it on an opponent of torture [Pelosi], and damage an advocate for SS, family planning etc [Pelosi] -- and humiliate a woman [Pelosi].

h...../

swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/05/20/pelosis-probably-right/

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 3:40 pm

Pelosi's Probably Right

[L]ooking at the substance of the accusations, it increasingly looks like [Pelosi} was right. 

[....]

Bob Graham, who was theoretically in the room with Shelby, says he has no recollection of the meeting at all – this from a man who famously details his every waking minute. Perhaps the most astonishing response has been from the CIA Director Leon Panetta, who basically said: Don't trust our records. Which begs the question: what other issues have they kept questionable records on?

The site is thick with substantive quotes and links to sources.

UPDATE: see also http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/05/24/the-cias-history-of-bamboozling-the-congress/

Fact-checking an anti-Muslim video

Pumapac says:  The video is scary if we assume the facts presented are true. But how do we know they ARE true? [....] What do they say about anecdotes — that they don’t equal data? Very true. But research and analysis CAN make facts apparent. So,

Today’s ACTION goal is to Fact Check this short documentary

The video is very easy to follow. It presents fact after fact after fact. Here’s a starter list to check. Pick one and Google it. Share links to helpful research sites like the Atlas of the Real World, the International Database of the US Census Bureau [....]

Links are at the Pumapac.org site:

http://pumapac.org/2009/05/18/reckless-propaganda-or-provocative-facts/#comments

The video they're talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

FOCA - pro-choice: "Freedom of Choice Act"

The office of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has made it known that not only is FOCA is among his priorities, but the bill will be reintroduced ( he introduced FOCA twice before) “sooner rather than later.” Barbara Boxer’s office confirmed that she will introduce the bill in the Senate.

http://jimblazsik.com/2009/03/10/obama’s-push-for-unrestricted-abortion-foca-is-coming/

Obama has said FOCA is not a priority because he wants to 'tamp down' anger or some such nonsense. Like he removed family planning money from the Stimulus to appease the GOP -- who refused to vote for the Stim anyway. See http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/obama-asks-congress-to-dump-contraceptives/

Prejean, Obama, Clintons agree. (I disagree!)

Prejean: ‘The president of the United States, the secretary of state, and many Americans agree with me in this belief.’

Prejean's statement at the Miss USA pageant when asked: ‘I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.’

Obama: “I’m a Christian, And so . . . I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”?

[ Cites at http://pumapac.org/2009/05/12/well-the-balls-in-your-court-now-obama/ ]

Prejean's statement was more qualified than Obama's (and the Clintons' statements were less quaified, sfaik.)

(Personally, I disagree with all four of them; I favor gay marriage and full rights to gays in all respects.)

Dr. Jack Wheeler Regarding Obama

"The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. "

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TVHANR2I0F7TN09QJ

In the opening post at this Topix thread, scroll down to an excerpt from Jack Wheeler -- very well written invective against Obama (from early 2008).

Here is Wheeler's website.

http://www.tothepointnews.com/

Unfortunately it is also full of well written invective against the Clintons, liberals, environmentalism, etc.

Also from Wheeler's site, http://www.freewebs.com/drjackwheeler/index.htm

here's Voltaire re Koolaid.

Barney Frank is a good guy...

... per this evidence 1. Last fall he tried to investigate where the bailout money was going. 2. In previous years defended Bair and iirc Born and perhaps some other women against sexism when they weren't listened to by the male experts 3. Now, with Carolyn Maloney, he is sponsoring a bill to help consumers against the credit card companies. Ref: NY TIMES BIZ SECTION: BANKS HOLD SWAY OVER DEMS nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/22consumer.html

PUMA project triage

Say we have our top five issue list. Then we watch current events and look at what different Pumas are interested in. We pick a short term clear cut project that serves all five goals (and if it serves some more goals that’s okay too).

For example, Caroline Kennedy as Hillary’s replacement. Some people who are anti-Kennedy because the Kennedys opposed Hillary did their thing against CK. Some who wanted a woman chosen did their thing for Maloney and Gillibrand. Some who wanted media reform challenged the media bias for CK. Some who saw corruption in the IL appointments agitated for a special election instead of an appointment. Some LGBT supporters promoted Randy whatshername.

It all worked together. Almost every Puma did some kind of dig at CK and the media while they were pushing their own pet issue. And it worked!

Another project might be a recount situation. The focus might be election reform, but some Pumas would be drawn in by sympathy for a particular candidate, or wishing to deny the Dems their veto-proof majority, or caring about some pet issue of one of the candidates. Some might be debunking media inaccuracy. Whatever they are pushing, each statement would probably include some dig at the recount procedure problem. It wouldn’t even matter whether all Pumas supported the same candidate! They would still all be digging at the recount procedure.

Currently we might focus on media treatment of the Tea Parties. Some people would re-cap media treatment of Hillary and Sarah, debunking some of those slanders. Some might find a woman journalist to praise — perhaps Greta or Lynn Sweet. Some might show evidence that the protests against May 31 were bigger than reported, and explain the DNC election procedure issues that caused those protests.

Once we’ve narrowed down to say 5 issues, then it doesn’t matter which issue is the nominal focus on each particular project. We can choose projects by how much interest there is in them already in the general public (eg with CK there was a lot of interest). And by how achievable each particular small project is!

[ trying to post this at RD in "Puma planning", it's in moderation ]