Sunday Wingnuts: Caiaphas Edition

Anonymous Liberal: Dispatches from an Alternate Universe

Here's David Rivkin's take on the torture memos, posted at The Corner:

The conclusions OLC memos reach — that the specific interrogation techniques used by the CIA did not constitute torture — are eminently reasonable. To any fair-minded observer, these memoranda definitively establish that the Bush Administration did not engage in torture. In short, these memos go a long way towards rebutting shrill and unfair attacks on the integrity of Bush Administration officials, and, more generally, on America's honor.

And did I mention that up is down, black is white, and Vice President Palin has been doing a splendid job in office so far?

Peterr (FDL): John Ashcroft: The Caiaphas of Torture

When yet more Bush-era OLC memos justifying as the official policy of the United States what many in the rest of the world believe to be torture (myself included) were released on Thursday, I tried to make sense of how John Ashcroft -- a devout and committed fundamentalist Christian-- could find himself approving what those memos recount. The next day (Good Friday by the Orthodox church's calendar and one week after Good Friday by the western church's calendar) the answer leaped out at me.

John Ashcroft is the Caiaphas of Torture.

For many of the Christian faith, the story of Jesus' arrest, trial, torture, and death are retold in their entirety on Good Friday, as recounted in the Gospel of John. One of the central figures in the story is Caiaphas, the high priest at the time. But he makes his first appearance in John's story much earlier, as Jesus' popularity is becoming problematic for the religious and political Powers That Be in Jerusalem. As the gospel story recounts things:

. . . the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council, and said, ‘What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.’ But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.’ (John 11:47-50, NRSV)

I can hear Caiaphas in my head, arguing passionately with the council members. "Never mind the commands of Moses: 'you shall not murder' and 'you shall not bear false witness.' Never mind the words of the prophets, calling for justice and righteousness in our laws and courts. We're facing an emergency here -- one that threatens the temple, the city of Jerusalem, and the nation as a whole. Extraordinary measures are called for. We have to look past legalisms, and do what needs to be done. If this is what is needed to keep our nation safe, then that's what we need to do." Three verses later, the gospel writer tells the readers that Caiaphas' colleagues agreed: "So from that day on they planned to put him to death."

In Bart Gellman's excellent book Angler, he recounts the famous hospital visit by Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales, where they tried and failed to get the ailing Ashcroft to re-assert his power over acting Attorney General James Comey and reauthorize the warrantless wiretapping program. After Ashcroft backed Comey, and Card and Gonzales left, Gelman notes a blessing that FBI Director Mueller gave to Ashcroft: "In every man's life there comes a time when the good Lord tests him. You passed your test tonight."

Perhaps so. But I have to wonder: did Ashcroft finally act on behalf of justice that night, because he was tired of the years he spent being a modern-day Caiaphas?

Terrific interview. Stand Burr your man April 17: Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., told his wife to take their money out of the bank at the beginning of the economic crisis, promoting a run on the bank. Instead of decrying this, some GOP leaders are defending his comments. Rachel Maddow talks with MSNBC political analyst Craig Crawford.

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

Benen: SUBSTANTIVE....

Former Rep. and DLC Chair Harold Ford was on MSNBC's "Hardball" yesterday, and Chris Matthews brought up the leaders in the Republican Party. According to a transcript from my reader Hoosier Paul, Ford had this to say:

"I think it also speaks to the schism and the tension in their party right now. They can't decide if they want to go the Paul Ryan/Eric Cantor route, which seems to be slightly more substantive and mindful of the fact that the country is looking for answers, and substantive answers at that, or if they want to go the Rush Limbaugh/Palin, and some would argue, even now, the Rick Perry approach, which borders on asinine...."

I can appreciate where Ford is coming from here. In fact, there's probably a few competing factions in the GOP, at least with regards to the future direction of the party. Rush Limbaugh recently told the CPAC audience that the right should "stop assuming that the way to beat [the left] is with better policy ideas," pointing to the Republican contingent that isn't especially concerned with "substantive answers."

What I find noteworthy about Ford's remarks, though, is that he named Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Eric Cantor (R-Va.) as examples of those who take policy matters seriously. These two, Ford suggested, are the kind of lawmakers who can give the Republican Party some substantive heft.

The problem, of course, is that if Ryan and Cantor are going to be the substantive backbone of the GOP in the coming years, the Republican Party's future is likely to be quite bleak.

Ryan, for example, recently insisted that the Obama administration's proposed budget is "worse than Europe's" budget (as if the continent has just one). He also proposed a truly insane five-year spending freeze to respond to the global economic crisis and described a massive tax cut for the wealthy, dropping the top rate to 25%, as "progressive." In fact, Ryan helped craft the House GOP caucus' budget alternative, which tried to lower the deficit by passing trillions of dollars in additional tax cuts. On taxes, spending, Social Security, Medicare, energy policy, Ryan's plan wasn't just wrong, it was demonstrably ridiculous.

And by all appearances, Cantor is slightly worse, not only endorsing Ryan's approach -- including the belief that the way out of a recession is deep federal spending cuts -- but also taking the lead in opposition economic recovery efforts in February. Best of all, this week, Cantor's office unveiled a Republican "solutions center" for Americans concerned about job losses, the housing crisis, and their savings. Every question led to the same response: tax cuts, spending cuts, or tax cuts and spending cuts.

Ryan and Cantor are prepared to take the lead on crafting "substantive answers" for the Republican Party? Here's a challenge for them: name one.

Kos get's winger hate mail: Saturday hate mail-apalooza

a sampler at the link

Sully: A Missive From Outer Space

Someone just told Powerline's Scott Johnson what tea-bagging is. The post is an instant camp classic:

There is something funny going on here, if not exactly where Cooper, Maddow and Sullivan find it. Cooper is widely reputed to be homosexual. Maddow and Sullivan are of course public homosexuals. It is funny in an ironic sort of way that these folks choose to disparage the tea party protestors from somewhere inside the homosexual subculture. Why not just call the protestors girly boys and let everyone in on the joke? Or would that spoil the fun?

I can assure Mr Johnson that teabagging knows no bounds on sexual orientation - and the vast majority of tea-bagging is purely heterosexual - and no disparagement or celebration of the teabaggers' sexual orientation is implied or imagined. I believe in tea-bag equality for all - gay and straight - myself. So does Samantha.

Ever wonder why the GOP is losing the next generation?

Benen: STEELE TRIES ON PARANOIA....

Just yesterday, I had a random tweet about RNC Chairman Michael Steele having gone several days without saying something nutty in public.

So much for that idea.

Steele spoke with Sean Hannity last night, and in the context of the Department of Homeland Security's report on potentially dangerous right-wing radicals, both suggested that President Obama is some kind of possible threat to national security.

Steele went on to argue, without evidence, that he's "sure" a recent anti-abortion event in Indiana featured federal surveillance.

"They've got their eye on the 3,000 Americans who assembled in Indiana last night, in Evansville, Indiana, to profess their continued effort to save the life of the unborn," Steele said, adding, "I'm sure there was somebody in the room with a notepad and a camera taking snapshots and writing down names."

As easy as it is to mock Steele's foolishness, there's a substantive angle to all of this, too. If Steele is worried about surveillance abuses and an executive branch with excessive power over monitoring law-abiding citizens, there have been some genuine abuses for him to address.

Oddly enough, when it comes to real-world, non-paranoid intrusions, Steele hasn't had much to say. Why do you suppose that is?

Still going right? April 17: As the Republican Party tries to find its voice, will it become moderate, or continue its right-wing views? Rachel Maddow is joined by author James Mann.

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

Benen: THE LATEST MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE....

Having milked the Department of Homeland Security's report on potentially violent radicals for all it's worth, Republicans have a new manufactured outrage to play with.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, told CNN Sunday it was "irresponsible" for President Obama to been seen "laughing and joking" with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas on Friday.

"This is a person who is one of the most anti-American leaders in the entire world," Ensign told CNN's John King on State of The Union. "He is a brutal dictator and human rights violations are very, very prevalent in Venezuela. And you have to be careful."

"When you're talking about the prestige of the United States and the presidency of the United States, you have to be careful who you're seen joking around with," he also said.

I see. The U.S. president was photographed shaking hands with a foreign head of state, and an international gathering of hemispheric heads of state.

Quick, someone draw up articles before this monster strikes again.

Chances are, President Obama would like to improve relations with our adversaries, and shook Hugo Chavez's hand out of a sense of international diplomacy. The efforts appear to possibly be paying dividends -- Venezuela indicated yesterday that it is considering naming an ambassador to the United States.

To be sure, Chavez is an odious figure. But he's also the twice-elected head of state of a large South American country with 30 million people. GOP rhetoric notwithstanding, there's no downside to improving our relations with the country's leadership.

This may be difficult for Ensign to understand, but sometimes, U.S. presidents meet foreign leaders we're not fond of. Once in a while, U.S. presidents even negotiate with foreign leaders who are clearly our adversaries -- Kennedy talked to Khrushchev, Nixon talked to Mao, Reagan talked to Gorbachev.

Are we to believe it's scandalous for Obama to simply shake hands -- not negotiate, not strike any deals, not come to any agreements, just press the flesh -- with the Venezuelan president? That a simple handshake undermines the "prestige of the United States"?

Please. Even for John Ensign, this is foolish.

Post Script: By the way, I seem to recall a tradition in which elected U.S. officials refrained from attacking the U.S. presidents while they represented the country overseas. It's safe to assume Republicans no longer believe in that tradition?