He Didn't Buy A One Way Ticket

TPM has compiled a report on what has been publicly reported about the attempted terrorist bombing on the Northwest flight Christmas day. There is at least one important correction to what has been reported and repeated erroneously all over the place since this attempted attack took place.

•The AP quoted a Nigerian official, Civil Aviation Authority chief Harold Demuren, saying that Abdulmutallab bought a round-trip ticket with cash at the KLM office in Accra, Ghana on Dec. 16. The $2,831 ticket was from Lagos, Nigeria, to Detroit via Amsterdam, he said. The return date was said to be Jan. 8, the Guardian quotes the same Nigerian agency as saying. A CBS report refers to a "scheduled two-week trip," which would be in keeping with the Jan. 8 return date. And a Dutch government report described by the International Herald Tribune (via Nexis) said that Abdulmutallab "had a round-trip ticket purchased in Ghana."

•However, multiple news outlets and commentators have asserted Abdulmutallab had a one-way ticket. That includes Time, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the Journal news pages, and Michael Gerson in the Washington Post. None of those outlets cite a source for the one-way ticket claim. The New York Times actually ran a Dec. 30 correction saying that an earlier piece "referred incorrectly to the plane ticket used by the suspect. It was a round-trip ticket, not a one-way ticket."

Now people on both sides of the political spectrum have used the notion that Abdulmutallab bought a one way ticket as a sign that the sytem didn't work because that should have been a red flag. And even further to assert that because Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, used a one way ticket, that its an even worse screw up for them to have not noticed Abdulmutallab because the situations seemed so similar.

But the truth is he bought a round trip ticket so that is one thing that was different from Reid. And when you take away the one way ticket meme then there isn't a whole lot that would make you think this was a mirror image of Reid.

There are other things that TPM dug up worth reading about as well. And as I was typing this post the official White House report was declassified. So feel free to click the links and get the truth about this incident. Obviously relying on our mainstream media hasn't worked out so well thus far.

FoxNews Needs A WAMBALANCEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You know that story that has been floating around all day about the White House attempting to exclude FoxNews from an interview with the new Wall Street "pay czar"? And the other networks standing up for FoxNews?

Yeah, not so much...

Which proves they can't even do a news story even if they are personally involved.

A Method To The Madness?

Wow, if Chuck Schumer is right about how this works then if Harry Reid has any balls at all, even ones from Rent A Center, we WILL get a public option.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) threw down the gauntlet on the public option for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) last night. Appearing on The Rachel Maddow Show, Schumer essentially put the fate of the public option in Reid's hands -- saying that while the bill passed Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee doesn't include a public health insurance option, it's up to Reid to decide whether to include a public option in the bill that merges the Senate Finance Committee bill with the bills passed by others committees -- all of which do include a public option.

"Leader Reid has the option of putting it in the final bill," Schumer said of the public option. "If he puts it in the final bill, in the combined bill, then you would need 60 votes to remove it. And there clearly are not 60 votes against the public option. And so we're urging him to do that, and he's seriously considering it."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now again I am not 100% on this yet, but I don't see a reason why Chuck Schumer would lie. And if its on the up and up Harry Reid had better get this shit done or he can bend over and kiss his ass good by.

And that's real.

And That's The Bottom LIne....

...Because Josh at TPM said so!

Ok cheesy ode to Stone Cold Steve Austin out of the way, Josh Marshall of the aforementioned TPM fame, has a post up that really boils it all the way down when it comes to the question of whether health care reforme gets passed this year with a public option in tact...

And that's this: the opposition to a so-called 'public option' comes almost entirely from insurance companies who have developed monopolies or near monopolies in particular geographic areas. And they don't want competition.

Note, I'm not saying more competition. I'm saying any competition at all. As Zack Roth explains in this new piece 94% of the health care insurance market is now under monopoly or near-monopoly conditions -- the official term of art is 'highly concentrated'. In other words, there's no mystery why insurance costs keep going up even as the suck quotient rises precipitously. Because in most areas there's little or no actual competition.

It's something everyone can understand that if you have only one widget maker, widgets will get really expensive, and probably decline in quality. And the widget makers will pour lots of money into Congress or whatever the law-making power is, to keep their monopoly in place because their monopoly ensures locked in profits. It's market theory 101 (or perhaps, rent-seeking 102, depending on your perspective.)

Put even shorter, if there is no public option in the health care reform bill then the monopolistic insurance companies will have won, if it does have a public option then everybody else in the country wins.

Its really that simple.

The Stenographers At Politico Strike Again

I usually think of Ben Smith as being a little bit better than most of his colleagues at Politico, but today just goes to show that even he isn't above allowing himselt to be used by the GOP either. Sad but not really surprising.

More Bullshit From Politico

These guys are going to write themselves right out of relevancy

Meet Brad Schlozman, Right Wing Tool

Over at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ Josh Marshall has a few posts up about the long-awaited inspector general report on the politicization of the Bush DOJ Civil Rights Division. He points out that the report is particularly damning for one Bradly Shlozman who was the Deputy Assistant Attorney General and subsequently the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General. What is at issue here is the politicizing of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice through hiring practices.

Now I am the type of person that goes to blogs not only to read what the person blogging has to say but also to check out the source links. Well after reading through the report myself I have decided that more of Schlozman's asshat hijinks should be exposed. I really don't know how in this day and age that somebody can truly believe they will get away with emailing this kind of stuff and never get called on it. I mean I know the Bush Administration has created a culture where it appears that anything goes and nobody ever is held to account but even by those standards some of this stuff was pushing the envelope. Remember this cat Shlozman basically was affecting people's lives by trying to pack the divisions he oversaw with card carrying conservatives hardly taking into account if they were even competent to do the job. Check him out.

In contrast, we found that Schlozman inappropriately considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring experienced attorneys in the sections he supervised and entry-level attorneys throughout the Division for the Attorney General’s Honors Program.6 We also found that Schlozman considered political and ideological affiliations in transferring and assigning cases to career attorneys in the sections he supervised.

snip

Cutlar said that the applicants whose résumés she reviewed after they had been culled from the applicant pool by Schlozman or others in the front office typically reflected membership in conservative organizations. She also said the most striking thing she noticed about the résumés was that the applicants generally lacked relevant experience. She said Schlozman minimized the importance of prior civil rights or human rights work experience. On that subject, Schlozman told Cutlar on one occasion, in the context of the hiring of volunteer interns in the Division, that relevant experience was not always a plus. In a voice mail to Cutlar in February 2006, Schlozman stated:

[W]hen we start asking about, "what is your commitment to civil rights?" . . . . [H]ow do you prove that? Usually by membership in some crazy liberal organization or by some participation in some crazy cause. . . . Look, look at my résumé – I didn’t have any demonstrated commitment, but I care about the issues. So, I mean, I just want to make sure we don’t start confining ourselves to, you know, politburo members because they happen to be a member of some, you know, psychopathic left-wing organization designed to overthrow the government.

snip

Cutlar said she vehemently objected to some of the candidates interviewed for the Special Litigation Section because she did not believe they were qualified, but said she was routinely overruled by Schlozman. For example, Cutlar said she objected to hiring a candidate who was the girlfriend of an attorney hired in the Division’s Educational Opportunities Section because the applicant was unqualified. The applicant, who was working as a contract paralegal at a law firm, was a member of both the Federalist Society and the Republican National Lawyers Association. Cutlar said she also noted a discrepancy in dates on the applicant’s résumé – specifically that during the period the applicant claimed to have been self-employed practicing law, she was not admitted to any state bar. When Cutlar sought an explanation from the applicant during the interview, Schlozman told her to “let it go.” Cutlar argued with Schlozman after the interview that the candidate had not been truthful and should not be hired. By the time she returned to her office, however, Cutlar had received an e-mail from Schlozman informing her that he was hiring the applicant.

snip

Several attorneys in the Division also told us that Schlozman was open about his disdain for and lack of trust in the attorney staff of the Division.13 Appellate Section Chief Diana Flynn told us that inconversations with her, Schlozman alternately referred to the Appellate Section lawyers hired during prior administrations as “Democrats” and “liberals,” and said they were “disloyal,” could not be trusted, and were not “on the team.” Flynn said Schlozman pledged to move as many of them out of the Division as he could to make room for the “real Americans” and “right-thinking Americans” he wanted to hire.

Accounts from numerous other Division employees and officials, including former AAG Wan Kim and Section Chiefs Cutlar and Flynn, as well as the context of Schlozman’s e-mails, indicate that his use of terms such as “real American,” “right-thinking American,” being “on the team,” and similar terms were Schlozman’s way of referring to politically conservative applicants and attorneys. For example, an e-mail dated July 17, 2006, from Schlozman to Monica Goodling, who at the time was Senior Counsel to the Attorney General and White House Liaison, sheds light on the meaning of Schlozman’s terms. In that e-mail, Schlozman recommended a friend who had interviewed with Goodling for a political position. Schlozman wrote, “I can assure you that [the applicant] is a good American. [The applicant] and Sheldon Bradshaw and I (and [one] other person) made up a four-member Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy at my former law firm.” In another e-mail sent to Goodling on December 4, 2006, in which Schlozman recommended a different friend for an Immigration Judge position, Schlozman wrote, “[D]on’t be dissuaded by his ACLU work on voting matters from years ago. This is a very different man, and particularly on immigration issues, he is a true member of the team.”

snip

Former AAG Kim said he recalled an instance while he was still a DAAG when a concern about improper hiring considerations by Schlozman was brought to his attention. Kim said that in about March 2004 he had received a telephone call “out of the blue” from Andrew Lelling, who at the time was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. Lelling had previously worked in the Civil Rights Division front office as Counsel to AAG Boyd. Kim was not acquainted with Lelling, but knew of his prior association with the Division. Kim said the call was memorable. He said that Lelling told him of a telephone conversation Lelling had just had with Schlozman. According to Kim, Lelling said, “I want to call you because I just spoke with Brad [Schlozman] recently and something that he said bothered me.” Lelling told Kim that he had called Schlozman to recommend a colleague at the U.S. Attorney’s Office who was interested in a position in the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division. Lelling told Kim that Schlozman had asked Lelling, “Well, is this guy conservative?” or something to that effect. Lelling said he had replied, “I don’t know. I don’t think so. I’m not sure,” and Schlozman told him, “Then he probably won’t be hired.”

Kim said he recalled that Lelling next said, “I don’t agree with that. I just wanted to call you, I don’t want to go around Schlozman, I don’t want him to think I’m going around his back, but I just don’t think that’s fair.” Kim told us that at the time he thought, “This is crazy.”

snip

Further evidence that Schlozman considered political factors in hiring is found in other e-mails. For example, in November 2003, when a Department attorney forwarded to Schlozman the résumé of a recent law school graduate who was clerking for a federal judge and was interested in a position at the Department, Schlozman forwarded the résumé to a Counsel in the front office of the Civil Rights Division, commenting that “this has lib written all over it. let’s discuss[.]”18

On November 13, 2003, Principal DAAG Wiggins forwarded an e-mail to Schlozman containing a magistrate judge’s recommendation of his law clerk for a position in the Division. The magistrate judge described his clerk as “a very able lawyer” who would be “a good addition to your staff.” Wiggins noted to Schlozman, “We need to hire this guy[.]” In a one-word e-mail reply to Wiggins, Schlozman asked: “conservative?”

snip

In another e-mail to a Division front office Counsel dated January 12, 2004, Schlozman inquired about an attorney being referred as a candidate for a career civil service position by asking, “how does he view the world, if you know what I mean?” In the e-mail, Schlozman
added, “(and for God’s sake, don’t forward this email!).”

In a January 30, 2004, e-mail to Kim, Schlozman declined an invitation to join Kim for lunch, noting, “Unfortunately I have an interview at 1 with some lefty who we’ll never hire but I’m extending a courtesy interview as a favor.” In another e-mail, dated March 5, 2004, Schlozman wrote to a front office Counsel that a Criminal Section deputy “has recommended several other commies for permanent positions in [the section]. [Criminal Section Chief Moskowitz] probably would concur with his recommendations. But as long as I’m here, adherents of Mao’s little red book need not apply.” Schlozman wrote an e-mail to Kim, dated March 15, 2004, that stated:

We need to start thinking about [Criminal Section] lateral hires. I fear that [Moskowitz] and his minions will be sorting through the résumés looking for [name of attorney] clones who are big libs and would enforce certain of our statutes only with great reluctance. In talking to Alex, he is of the view (as am I) that our new folks should be individuals with
a background in, or genuine commitment to prosecuting trafficking cases. Also, any candidate must profess his/her willingness to zealously prosecute both death penalty and PBA cases. I strongly suspect that we have plenty of former prosecutors in the batch, so I would prefer not to see a bunch of public defenders that think like Al. Thoughts?

snip

As part of the same e-mail exchange, on July 16, 2003, Schlozman wrote, “My tentative plans are to gerrymander all of those crazy libs rights out of the section.” In addition, while interim U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Missouri, Schlozman wrote an e-mail to a friend, dated June 15, 2006, contrasting his job as U.S. Attorney with his position in the Civil Rights Division. He wrote:

It has been months since I felt the need to scream with a blood-curdling cry at some commie, partisan subordinate (i.e., most of the [Voting] section staff until recently). And I feel like the people I now work with are all complete professionals. What a weird change. Granted, these changes are nice in many respects, but bitchslapping a bunch of [Division] attorneys really did get the blood pumping and was even enjoyable once in a while. I think now it’s all Good Cop for folks there. I much preferred the role of Bad Cop. . . . But perhaps the Division will name an award for me or something. How about the Brad Schlozman Award for Most Effectively Breaking the Will of Liberal Partisan Bureaucrats. I would be happy to come back for the awards ceremony.

Now why is it that this isn't headlines on every news station? I swear I used to think people who railed against the mainstream media were just wack jobs who probably wore tin foil hats. Well I need to break out my tin foil kangol because the more you actually look beyond just what our media chooses to report on the more you realize what a dismal failure they are whether by intention or not. Thank God that information is now free to average people so we can see for ourselves what is really going on in the world.