All the news ...

QOTD, Sully: The more you think about the role torture played in constructing a false premise for a war where more torture would be unleashed, the more terrifying and dark this chapter in American history becomes.

Sargent: Cheney Succeeding In Shifting Torture Debate?

In case you’re wondering whether Dick Cheney and other former Bushies are succeeding in shifting the torture debate on to the narrow question of whether torture has “worked,” take a look at this headline, photo, and article in today’s New York Times (click to enlarge):

This is precisely what Cheney and other Bushies want the debate to be about: Whether torture has stopped terror attacks, as opposed to whether it’s moral, or detrimental to America’s global image, or a boon to Al Qaeda recruitment, or whether the architects of the policy broke the law and should be prosecuted.

The Bushies want this question — “did torture stave off terror attacks and save lives?” — hovering in the air. There’s plenty of evidence that torture hasn’t worked at all and has done more harm than good. Even some former Bush administration officials have conceded it hasn’t done anything to stop terror attacks.

But it’s easy for the Cheney camp to muddy the waters and turn this into a matter of debate by citing unspecified classified info that supposedly supports the claim that it has saved lives — info that we’ll never see. Having the debate focused this way also lays the groundwork for the Cheney camp to say “I told you so” in the event of another terror attack.

One more time: Cheney and the Bushies have mounted a relentless campaign to shift this debate that shows no signs of abating. Whatever the downside of Cheney’s re-emergence for the GOP, it may be working. Where’s the push-back on this from the White House, or at least its allies in Congress and elsewhere?

Great get by JedL: Bush proves Rove and Fox are lying about torture

Over the past couple of days, Karl Rove and Fox News have offered a new argument in defense of the Bush administration's torture policies.

Now, they say, waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) yielded intelligence that led to the disruption of an al Qaeda plot to attack the tallest building in Los Angeles, the Library Tower (which both Bush and Rove called the Liberty Tower, for some reason). There's just one problem with Rove's new story: it couldn't possibly be true.

As Timothy Noah pointed out in Slate, the Los Angeles attack was foiled in February of 2002. KSM was not captured until March of 2003, however -- more than a year later.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that timeline is impossible. Perhaps appropriately, then, here's a video of George W. Bush -- in his own words -- proving that Karl Rove and Fox News are lying about torture:

• ::

• 
  

Josh Marshall: Becoming a Fad New Ponzi schemer unearthed -- this one actually tried to scam the TARP fund.

Charging ahead on regulation April 22: Rachel Maddow is joined by Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, to talk about the new credit card regulation proposed in Congress.

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

Benen: MOVING FORWARD ON RECONCILIATION....

The New York Times reports today that the Democratic leaders "are tempted to use their political muscle to speed passage of health care legislation with minimal concessions to the Republican minority." The majority party would reportedly "resort to an obscure procedure known as reconciliation to clear the way for Senate passage of a comprehensive health bill with a 51-vote majority, rather than the 60 votes that would otherwise be needed."

It's worth noting that this is framed the wrong way. Reconciliation is not "obscure"; it's a procedure used many times in recent years, usually by Republicans. Reconciliation was used to pass welfare reform; it was used to pass Bush's tax cut plans; and more recently, GOP lawmakers even wanted to use reconciliation to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

For the Democratic majority to pursue health care reform through reconciliation is entirely reasonable, and justified given a) recent history; b) the importance of the legislation; and c) Republican obstructionism.

On the other hand, the Republican minority is prepared to throw the tantrum to end all tantrums. Sen. Mike Enzi (R) of Wyoming said using reconciliation to pass health care reform would be tantamount to "a declaration of war." Roll Call reports today that the GOP is already planning its retaliation for Dems using a procedure Republicans have used many times.

As Senate Democrats move closer to using reconciliation to pass health care reform this year, key GOP Senators are signaling plans to avenge the move by employing parliamentary tactics to trip up even the most noncontroversial of agenda items.

Although Senate Democrats are far from reaching a consensus on the reconciliation issue, party leaders confirmed Wednesday that they are reserving the right to use it to pass health care reform if Republicans fail to negotiate in good faith. Senate Republicans -- saying they have every intention of being a full partner in the upcoming health care negotiations -- said holding reconciliation in reserve could poison the discussions, and threatened retribution.

"If they go down that road, I think the fur is going to fly," Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) said. "I suspect that there is going to be an awful lot of resistance, and we will exercise our prerogatives so that the rules of the Senate are respected."

In other words, if Democrats try to pass legislation the same way Republicans tried to pass legislation when the GOP was in the majority, Republicans will effectively shut down the entire lawmaking process, indefinitely. The very idea of allowing the chamber to vote, up or down, on a key bill is so completely outrageous, congressional comity would be destroyed.

As if Republicans have been cooperative and productive up until now.

Of course, the GOP has options short of partisan war. They could work with the majority to pass meaningful legislation. If that seems laughable, then you can understand why the reconciliation process seems like a reasonable alternative.

For what it's worth, I'd just remind Senate Republicans that, as recently as a month ago, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) conceded that "Republicans have in the past engaged in using reconciliation to further the party's agenda," and aren't in a position to complain if Democrats choose to do the same.

Sudbay: Senate Republicans are filibustering Sebelius

The right-wing crackpots have been in a frenzy over the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). And, as we all now know, the right-wing crackpots are all that's left in the GOP. Today, GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell announced, in so many words, that on behalf of the extremists in his caucus, the Republicans are filibustering the nomination of Sebelius. From Think Progress:

The Senate was expected to confirm President Obama's choice for Health and Human Services Secretary today, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), but Senate Republicans refused to allow the vote, calling her a "fairly contentious" candidate:

At the start of the session today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) proposed taking a vote after five hours of debate. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) objected, arguing that lawmakers needed more time to consider her "fairly contentious" selection.

A handful of Republicans have complained about Sebelius' support for abortion rights and her failure to report the full extent of campaign contributions she received from a physician who performs abortions.

McConnell told the Washington Post that it's not a filibuster, but, big surprise, McConnell is being disingenuous. It is a Filibuster. Senate.gov provides a definition of filibuster:

"Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions."

That's what McConnell and his wingnuts are doing. Now, the Democrats need to roll over the Republicans. We need a Secretary of HHS. And, we don't need any more of the GOP's obstructionist tactics. Let's see if there are any Republican Senators who will stand up to the right wing whackos. Her nomination already got two Republican votes in Committee: Pat Roberts (KS) and Olympia Snowe (ME).

I'll never forget walking through the press corps in the East Room after Obama's first press and hearing one of the more famous reporters bitching to other reporters that Obama "filibustered" his answers. That said so much to me about the D.C.-based press corps. When the president can provide thoughtful answers, that meets the definition of a filibuster. But, when the Republicans actually filibuster in the Senate, reporters will almost never use the word.

Roll them, Senate Democrats. Put an end to this obstruction.