Evening Reading

In honor of St. Patties Day:

Robinson has A Hand in the Health Debate. In which an avocado and a fork lead to revelations.

Yglesias: Gates, Obama to Take on Military-Industrial Complex

There have been a lot of smoke signals indicating that Robert Gates and Barack Obama are gearing up to take on the bloated defense weapons system sector, but there have also been a fair number of contrary signals. Now the signals are looking both clear and good:

Two defense officials who were not authorized to speak publicly said Gates will announce up to a half-dozen major weapons cancellations later this month. Candidates include a new Navy destroyer, the Air Force’s F-22 fighter jet, and Army ground-combat vehicles, the officials said. More cuts are planned for later this year after a review that could lead to reductions in programs such as aircraft carriers and nuclear arms, the officials said.

This is excellent news. Matt Duss observes:

This is welcome news. As I wrote yesterday, one of the key strategic misconceptions of the Bush administration was to focus on threats from strong state actors rather than non-state actors operating within weak and failed states. (Last fall, CAP’s Brian Katulis argued — as did I — that Gates’ demonstrated approach to 21st century national security challenges was a good reason to keep him in place in an Obama administration.)

Andrew Exum observes that this means the Gates Pentagon will now be fighting a three front war, adding “the bi-partisan coalition of lobbyists, congressmen, and industry leaders” to their existing problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Gordon Adams in a guest post at Democracy Arsenal takes on the specious economic argument for continuing with strategically blinkered weapons programs.

Another Jed Lewison video.

During the stimulus battle, the question about the Republican Party was whether or not they would be willing to set aside partisan politics and work with Democrats to get something done for economic recovery.

Now that they've made their unwillingness to work with Democrats clear, in the upcoming budget debate, the question will be whether or not they will even offer an alternative proposal, or if they will just sit on the sidelines (aka, Fox News), reflexively launching political attack after political attack.

This morning, President Obama framed the issue perfectly:

Ezra Klein: SENATE: AIG HAS 48 HOURS TO GIVE BACK THE GODDAMN MONEY.

If you're wondering why we didn't let AIG fail, Felix Salmon explains it slowly and clearly and argues that we really didn't bail out AIG: We bailed out the Credit Default Swap market and used AIG as our point of entry. "It was quite an elegant solution, in its way," says Salmon. "Rather than trying to unpick the CDS knot institution by institution, you could just bail them all out at once by backstopping AIG."

Of course, then you read this sort of thing arguing that we should give the AIG guys the bonuses because if we don't, Wall Street will lose its faith in the nature of contracts and the AIG traders will refuse to tell anyone where the debts are buried and you begin to want to blow up capitalism and start over entirely.

Happily, the Senate seems to feel much the same way. Claire McCaskill's new tumblr site explains that "There will be a letter sent to the CEO of AIG from most, if not all, of the Democratic Senators momentarily. This letter will demand that any bonuses be withheld or repaid immediately. The letter goes on to explain that we will proceed to recover the bonuses through taxation if AIG fails to recover this money for taxpayers." Harry Reid has asked Max Baucus to have the legislation ready in 48 hours.

Felix Salmon, for his part, has an idea on structure. "Set the surtax at, say, 150% of all bonus payments," he suggests. "Then that would pretty much guarantee that the recipients would decline to receive them."

Sully: Anger Rising

Hilzoy is furious about the AIG bonuses:

I don't think that rage normally leads to good policy. (Though, as I've said before, I really believe that it would help a lot with moral hazard if people found the experience of having the government bail out their firms profoundly unpleasant.) And I'm sure that my inner policy wonk will shortly regain control. Still, at the moment, it's awfully tempting. I think of people I've known who have worked hard all their lives for not very much money, only to be completely bankrupted by unforeseen medical catastrophes, and I imagine these people being asked to support investment bankers in the style to which they have become accustomed, and fury feels like exactly the right response.

My own frontal cortex remains flooded with anger right now as well. But when politics and economics are this out of whack, something unwise is usually about to happen.

Benen: CUOMO PULLS BACK THE CURTAIN A LITTLE MORE....

What do you know, the AIG story can get worse.

Seventy-three employees were paid more than $1 million in the newly minted bonuses at the insurance giant, American International Group, according to the New York attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo.

The attorney general provided some new details on Tuesday about some of the $160 million in bonuses that A.I.G. paid out last week in a letter sent to Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services.

"A.I.G. made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees forcing a taxpayer bailout," Mr. Cuomo wrote in the letter. "Something is deeply wrong with this outcome."

Now, some have noted how foolish it is to pay those who failed "retention" bonuses to stick around and clean up the mess they created. But that's what makes today's revelations especially striking -- 11 of the employees who received bonuses of more than $1 million no longer work for the company. One of the 11 received $4.6 million.

If these folks took the money and ran, doesn't it defeat the purpose of a "retention" payment?

Senate Democrats continues to explore their options this morning. CNN reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on the Senate floor Tuesday that the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee will pursue a legislative fix in such a way that the "recipients of those bonuses will not be able to keep all their money -- and that's an understatement."

What's more, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), will follow up on an idea from Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and propose a special tax on AIG within the next 24 hours.

And while the outrage seemed largely bipartisan yesterday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the second highest ranking Republican in the chamber, started pushing back in the other direction this morning, accusing politicians of being quick to "demagogue" the AIG issue. Some far-right blogs are also, oddly enough, offering tacit defenses of AIG.

They appear to be in a shrinking minority.

Kevin Drum: Revenge of the Spurred

So what happens if we manage to wrest all those retention bonuses away from the AIG traders who destroyed the company? Maybe this:

Company officials contend that the uproar is scaring away the very employees who understand AIG Financial Products' complex trades and who are trying to dismantle the division before it further endangers the world's economy.

"It's going to blow up," said a senior Financial Products manager, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the company. "I have a horrible, horrible, horrible feeling that this is going to end badly."

That would be bad. But Andrew Ross Sorkin thinks it might be even worse:

A.I.G. employees concocted complex derivatives that then wormed their way through the global financial system. If they leave — the buzz on Wall Street is that some have, and more are ready to — they might simply turn around and trade against A.I.G.’s book. Why not? They know how bad it is. They built it.

So as unpalatable as it seems, taxpayers need to keep some of these brainiacs in their seats, if only to prevent them from turning against the company.

Now that's a lovely thought, isn't it? If they don't get their bonuses, these guys might not only leave AIG, but turn around and do their best to make things even worse. That's just speculation, of course. But would it surprise anyone if that started to happen?

Sudbay: Top bank officials at Citigroup and Morgan Stanley meeting to figure out ways to skirt compensation limits

Wonder what is taking up the time of top officials at banks rescued with your tax dollars? You'd like to think they're all hunkered down trying to solve the crisis they created with help from George Bush and the GOP. According to Reuters, avoiding the salary caps is a top priority right now:

Anticipating restrictions on bonuses, officials at Citigroup Inc and Morgan Stanley are exploring ways to sidestep tough new federal caps on compensation, the Wall Street Journal said.

Executives at these banks and other financial institutions that received government aid are discussing increasing base salaries for some executives and other top-producing employees, the paper said, citing people familiar with the situation.

The discussions are at an early stage, partly because the government has not yet issued specific rules on the bonus payments that will be allowed at companies that received aid under the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, the paper said.

Seriously, these people are tone deaf. They do not realize how hated they are in America right now. And, they aren't doing anything to ameliorate the situation. Instead, they're making it worse.

Sargent: First Read Joins Chorus Hitting Robert Gibbs For Being Mean To Cheney

The gang at MSNBC’s First Read, who are generally an important daily read, joins the chorus of White House reporters pillorying White House press sec Robert Gibbs for responding disdainfully yesterday to Dick Cheney’s disdainful criticism of President Obama:

Is Robert Gibbs’ open disdain for Cheney acceptable to a president who promised to move beyond petty political squabbling? And does the president agree with Gibbs’ description of the loyal opposition as “the Republican cabal”?

Ask those questions if you want, but if they are going to be asked, simple fairness dictates that the following questions should also be asked:

Did Cheney’s claim to CNN that Obama has raised the risk of another attack constitute “open disdain,” and is it “acceptable” to both the White House press corps and the current GOP leadership? Does the current GOP leadership — which has called for Obama and Dems to be “bipartisan” — agree with Cheney’s assertions? Why is Cheney’s attack getting a free pass from the press, and why shouldn’t Gibbs aggressively defend his boss against Cheney’s broadside?

There’s no sign that First Read had any problem with Cheney’s assault — its only other post on this that I can find is a neutral report on the Cheney interview. But again, simple fairness dictates that at a minimum Cheney take a hit here, too. Does the First Read crew really think Gibbs’ attack was less “acceptable” than Cheney’s? Doubtful.

Either way, this meme is snowballing — CBS’ Chip Reid hammered it yesterday, as did ABC’s Rick Klein, and First Read helps set the Beltway conventional wisdom. So expect Gibbs to be hit with questions again about this today.

• Just a thought, but a message to the White House praising Gibbs for his response and suggesting that Gibbs not only not back down but come prepared with a comprehensive list of Mr. Cheney's abuses and a challenge to the media to finally do the reporting on these they should have already done and stop providing him with a platform to deceive. Here is the WH CONTACT info.
  

dday says Respect Is Earned

The scribblers from the White House Press Corps have dropped their teacups and opened windows for air after the vicious, uncouth attack on their dear friend Dick Cheney by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Rick Klein, chief towel-washer at ABC's The Note (they still print that?), exclaimed "Wow—we’re talking about the former vice president here." NBC's First Read (Facebook to The Note's MySpace) tut-tutted about the return of "petty political squabbling." And Chip Reid, bravely bold Chip Reid, after choking back tears and bolstered by the support of his fellow Villagers, stood up to that horrible bully and gave him a piece of his mind (hopefully he has some left):

Reid: Can I ask you, when you referred to the former Vice President, that was a really hard-hitting, kind of sarcastic response you had. This is a former Vice President of the United States. Is that the attitude—is that the sanctioned tone toward the former Vice President of the United States from this White House now?

The Village is rising in solidarity to defend and protect that most fragile of egos, Dick Cheney. Because they have respect for the institutions and the office, you see.

Slightly less remarked-upon than the honor of St. Dick is yet another verdict on the torture that he directed and authorized while sitting in that office. I know in the Village you can earn respect without being respectable, but this fake outrage over a one-line insult when prisoners around the world were beaten, strapped naked to cots, suffocated by water, dragged around by collars and confined into a small box, to just name a few techniques, at the behest of THE SAME GUY THE PRESS IS DEFENDING, is a little tough to take.

With the help of the American trauma surgeon, Abu Zubaydah's captors nursed him back to health. He was moved at least twice, first, reportedly, to Thailand; then, he believes, to Afghanistan, probably Bagram. In a safe house in Thailand the interrogation began:

I woke up, naked, strapped to a bed, in a very white room. The room measured approximately [13 feet by 13 feet]. The room had three solid walls, with the fourth wall consisting of metal bars separating it from a larger room. I am not sure how long I remained in the bed. After some time, I think it was several days, but can't remember exactly, I was transferred to a chair where I was kept, shackled by [the] hands and feet for what I think was the next 2 to 3 weeks. During this time I developed blisters on the underside of my legs due to the constant sitting. I was only allowed to get up from the chair to go [to] the toilet, which consisted of a bucket. Water for cleaning myself was provided in a plastic bottle.

I was given no solid food during the first two or three weeks, while sitting on the chair. I was only given Ensure [a nutrient supplement] and water to drink. At first the Ensure made me vomit, but this became less with time.

The cell and room were air-conditioned and were very cold. Very loud, shouting type music was constantly playing. It kept repeating about every fifteen minutes twenty-four hours a day. Sometimes the music stopped and was replaced by a loud hissing or crackling noise.

The guards were American, but wore masks to conceal their faces. My interrogators did not wear masks.

During this first two to three week period I was questioned for about one to two hours each day. American interrogators would come to the room and speak to me through the bars of the cell. During the questioning the music was switched off, but was then put back on again afterwards. I could not sleep at all for the first two to three weeks. If I started to fall asleep one of the guards would come and spray water in my face [...]

Two black wooden boxes were brought into the room outside my cell. One was tall, slightly higher than me and narrow. Measuring perhaps in area [3 1/2 by 2 1/2 feet by 6 1/2 feet high]. The other was shorter, perhaps only [3 1/2 feet] in height. I was taken out of my cell and one of the interrogators wrapped a towel around my neck, they then used it to swing me around and smash me repeatedly against the hard walls of the room. I was also repeatedly slapped in the face....

I was then put into the tall black box for what I think was about one and a half to two hours. The box was totally black on the inside as well as the outside.... They put a cloth or cover over the outside of the box to cut out the light and restrict my air supply. It was difficult to breathe. When I was let out of the box I saw that one of the walls of the room had been covered with plywood sheeting. From now on it was against this wall that I was then smashed with the towel around my neck. I think that the plywood was put there to provide some absorption of the impact of my body. The interrogators realized that smashing me against the hard wall would probably quickly result in physical injury.

Dick Cheney attended the principals' meeting where these techniques were approved. And given the timeline of events, and Abu Zubaydah's testimony, we can divine that he was a guinea pig, an experiment, a test subject for torture.

"I was told during this period that I was one of the first to receive these interrogation techniques, so no rules applied. It felt like they were experimenting and trying out techniques to be used later on other people."

This article makes clear, then, that about two and a half months after he first woke up in US custody--so probably shortly after mid-June 2002--the US was experimenting on Abu Zubaydah, testing out various forms of torture to see which worked best and left the fewest marks.

Understand what this means: the torturers were conducting their experiments on Abu Zubaydah before John Yoo wrote up an OLC memo authorizing torture (hell--Yoo may have excluded those methods they had decided were ineffective and that my be why they told Abu Zubaydah there were no rules). The torturers were conducting their experiments with the intimate involvement of those back at the White House getting briefed and approving of each technique. And the torturers were being videotaped doing so.

You can put aside, for only this moment, the fact that Cheney helped to break the global economy and has no explanation for it. Or Katrina or Iraq or Valerie Plame or the energy task force or the allegations of an executive assassination ring that reported only to him. This is a man who presided over the experimentation of human beings.

That is who the Village has decided is worthy of respect.

Benen: PEOPLE ARE WATCHING THIS LUNATIC....

Glenn Beck, Fox News' deranged media personality, has been telling a national television audience that the Obama administration might be setting up secret "concentration camps" to lock up conservatives. The president, Beck believes, may be using FEMA in this conspiratorial drive towards "a totalitarian state."

Beck, who has already voiced his affinity for the John Birch Society, is also distributing Bichers' literature to his audiences.

If he were just some random right-wing blogger, it would be easier to laugh this off. If he were just some strange man screaming on a street corner, social service agencies might be called in to help the guy out. But instead, people are listening to this nut.

In fact, Beck has been dominating cable news recently. According to TVNewser's charts of Nielsen ratings, out of all the cable news networks, his Fox show has consistently placed second in the key demographic of viewers aged 25 to 54 over the past couple weeks, beating even Sean Hannity's and trailing only "The O'Reilly Factor." When it comes to total viewers, too, Beck's been cleaning up, generally placing third, just behind Hannity.

But Beck got his biggest audience numbers yet for a special he hosted on Friday, a special so ludicrous and over-hyped that Fox's own Shep Smith couldn't help but have a little fun at his colleague's expense.

But it paid off: That one episode of Beck's program got the highest ratings in the key demographic for the entire month of March so far. In total, TVNewser reports, "There were more viewers watching Beck's 5pm show than watched the entire prime time (8-11pm) lineups on CNN and MSNBC."

Kevin Drum argued the other day, "It's more and more obvious that Glenn Beck has decided that becoming a male Ann Coulter is good for his ratings. So his show is now dedicated to saying increasingly outrageous things solely in an attempt to get liberals to denounce him and drive his ratings yet higher. Conclusion: it's time to start ignoring him, right?"

Maybe, but I'm not sure. Beck, far more than Coulter, seems to believe what he's saying. Coulter craves controversy -- she's a clown pretending to be a provocateur -- but Beck literally seems mad. He sees bizarre and elaborate conspiracies, and worse, seems to perceive himself as the leader of an unstable movement.

Coulter is harmless. Is Beck?

Karen Tumulty: Underplayed Story of the Day

• Way back on A14 of the NYT is this scoop by Nick Lewis giving us the name of President Obama's first appeals court appointment: David F. Hamilton of Indiana, whom Lewis describes as highly regarded and moderate. Also significant is the fact that Obama intends to announce his appointments one at a time, rather than in a large group, as President Bush did. Bush's action sent a signal that he meant to give the courts an ideological makeover. So why is all of this so important?:

• The administration official said part of the reason for making the Hamilton nomination the administration's first public entry into the often contentious field of judicial selection was to serve “as a kind of signal” about the kind of nominees Mr. Obama will select. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the nomination had not been officially made.

  The White House is planning to announce a handful of other candidates over the next few weeks to fill some of the 17 vacancies on the appeals courts, which are just below the level of the Supreme Court. On most of the 12 regional appeals courts, including on the Seventh Circuit for which Judge Hamilton has been nominated, a majority of the sitting judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

  Mr. Obama's selections will be closely watched to see what role he tries to play in shaping the ideology of the federal courts, which have influence over some of the nation's most intensely felt social issues. The administration official said the White House was hoping to reduce the partisan contentiousness of judicial confirmation battles of recent years.

  “We would like to put the history of the confirmation wars behind us,” the official said.

• gysgt213 Says:
  Tuesday, March 17, 2009 at 8:03 am

  "The administration official said the White House was hoping to reduce the partisan contentiousness of judicial confirmation battles of recent years."
  .
  Here's how this will play out. The republicans will use every trick in the book just to flat out block any Obama appointments. The mainstream press will give them their usual perch on their various platforms to make outlandish and contridictory statements against Obama's selections.
  .
  The republcians have no need to waste time and energy developing ligitment complaints. Comments like "I don't think we should allow the ACLU to run our judicial system will go unchallenged, treated as perfectly reasonable opposition and allowed to be repeated over and over again. And the press will their usual assist by asking the same sort of questions themselves.
  .
  Obama's team will figure out they have to get in the mud to fight back and the press will be all over him for going back on his promise to stop the childish games. At the same time the meme will develop that Obama is taking the judicial system to the far left and his people will have to answer that charge at every turn.
  .
  So to the Obama team I say. Good luck with that.

The cost of war March 16: Talk Me Down: In Afghanistan, there was an assassination attempt on the Mayor of Kandahar, and four American troops were killed after a roadside bomb. After more than eight years in the region, what's the real cost of victory in Afghanistan? Lt. Col. John Nagl tries to talk Rachel down.

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