Pruning Shears

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

David Obey Bluster Watch. On Afghanistan:

“There ain’t going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan,” House Appropriations Chairman David Obey told ABC News in an exclusive interview. “If they ask for an increased troop commitment in Afghanistan, I am going to ask them to pay for it.”

Obey, a Democrat from Wisconsin, made it clear that he is absolutely opposed to sending any more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and says if Obama decides to do that, he’ll demand a new tax — what he calls a “war surtax” — to pay for it.

“On the merits, I think it is a mistake to deepen our involvement,” Obey said. “But if we are going to do that, then at least we ought to pay for it. Because if we don’t, if we don’t pay for it, the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every initiative we have to rebuild our own economy.”

Add to this on the stimulus package:

The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes.

On state secrets:

During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president’s assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of Congressional statutes he was required to enforce. We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude.

On Iraq:

As chairman of the appropriations committee, I have no intention of reporting out of committee any time in this session of Congress any such (war funding) request that simply serves to continue the status quo.

I don’t know if Cynthia Kouril was posting anywhere before joining FDL, but if not she gets my vote for Best New Blogger for 2009. She’s a former Special Assistant United States Attorney and she does a great job dismantling specious arguments, like this bit of nonsense from Michael Gerson:

Holder seemed to concede this last complication by asserting that New York is “hardened” against possible terrorism. If I were a New Yorker, that would fall into the category of chilly comfort.

I actually am a native New Yorker, born and bred.

You know what was “chilly comfort”? Condoleezza Rice saying, “no one could have anticipated” after the “My Pet Goat” reader-in-chief dismissed the CIA briefer who tried to warn him that al Qaeda wanted to fly planes into buildings, telling the briefer he had covered his ass. You know what else was chilly comfort? Watching Shrub take a photo op with NYC firefighters and then treating Homeland Secuirty funding like some kind of pork barrel slush fund and sending it to places which have never shown up in any terrorists’ plans just to bolster support in red states.

Part 3 covers the war on the judiciary by business, and Kouril writes:

How many times have you heard GOP talking points blaming the high cost of medical care on “trial lawyers”? How many times have you heard some winger shouting down the house about “tort reform”? Do you know what tort reform is? Pups, this is code for taking away your right to go to court if you are injured by a doctor’s malpractice, or a defective product, or the negligence or recklessness of another person or corporation.

But we don’t believe that we should take away the right of people like Valerie Lakey, who was the young girl who I represented, five years old, severely injured for life, on a defective swimming pool drain cover.

It turns out the company knew of 12 other children who had either been killed or severely injured by the same problem. They hid it. They didn’t tell anybody. They could have fixed it with a 2-cent screw. That’s wrong.

John Kerry and I are always going to stand with the Valerie Lakeys of the world, and not with the insurance companies.

In addition to jerking around those attempting to make sense of the legal system the DOJ is happy to cover up for the lying scumbags in the previous administration. Which under the circumstances isn’t really a big surprise.

So Greg Craig is out. One of the interesting details is the internal conflict over the suppression of torture photos. The official line is that releasing them would jeopardize soldiers, but Britain showed this week that photos can also provide evidence for charges of war crimes:

The covering of a prisoner’s face and rear handcuffing on the ground is a breach of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits the humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees. When this is done to support interrogations, as in this case, it also contravenes Article 31: prohibition of physical and moral coercion.

On the heels of Craig’s ouster came another high profile resignation. Marcy sees a pattern.

There’s a lot to be discouraged about on the economic front - including the latest - so maybe the possibility of a transaction tax on high volume trading will make you feel better. If something like it goes through, and it’s obviously a long shot, then in less than ten years it would bring in more than we spent on the bailout. It wouldn’t be a one-to-one correspondence of bailout to tax, but it would be hard not to see a cause and effect between the two. If legislation actually passes taxpayers might profit handsomely in the long run from last fall’s near meltdown. And if that doesn’t warm your heart then surely the tale of Die Robin Hood Bankerin will.

American mercenaries running assassination squads in Pakistan. Via. Heavy sarcasm on the nearly inevitable massive blowback not indulged.

The controversial release of climate change scientist emails has been lightly treated on the left, but George Monbiot has an outstanding commentary on why it must be addressed head on, pointing out that “the deniers’ campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way.” Climate change science is on the verge of turning into a political football. If the scientific community’s response is tactically identical to the deniers at this crucial moment it will set their cause back a generation.