This may not be about W., and it may not be big news, but I think it’s hilarious:

A new book by Ronald Kessler claims the Bush twins gave Secret Service agents lots of trouble.

“Jenna would purposely try to lose her protection by going through red lights or by jumping in her car without telling agents where she was going. As a result, in a total waste of manpower, the Secret Service kept her car under surveillance so agents could follow her,” he writes, according to a New York Post preview.

In his book “Bush’s Law,” New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau wrote that the Secret Service worked with Mexican government agents to help a 19-year-old Jenna Bush go on a bar-hopping trip south of the border. The story was set to run in a major newspaper on September 12, 2001; it was never published.

God bless the Bush family!

Iran supreme leader warns opposition to back down

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s supreme leader told politicians Monday not to disturb the country’s security in a strong warning to the opposition to back down after one of its top figures called for a referendum on the government.

How many times will Khamenei try to silence everyone in his country? Talk about insecure.

For the past few weeks, as you know, I’ve been telling you Paul Krugman is on fire. He has been hitting the nail on the head, and dishing out all he can serve. His latest op-ed is brilliant:

The American economy remains in dire straits, with one worker in six unemployed or underemployed. Yet Goldman Sachs just reported record quarterly profits — and it’s preparing to hand out huge bonuses, comparable to what it was paying before the crisis. What does this contrast tell us?

First, it tells us that Goldman is very good at what it does. Unfortunately, what it does is bad for America.

Second, it shows that Wall Street’s bad habits — above all, the system of compensation that helped cause the financial crisis — have not gone away.

Third, it shows that by rescuing the financial system without reforming it, Washington has done nothing to protect us from a new crisis, and, in fact, has made another crisis more likely.

I suggest you educate yourself and read the entire article. In the mean time, Goldman Sachs will continue to be Goldman Sachs… but hopefully not for long.

You can argue that such rescues are necessary if we’re to avoid a replay of the Great Depression. In fact, I agree. But the result is that the financial system’s liabilities are now backed by an implicit government guarantee.
Paul Krugman

#5 Hugo Chavez

Speech fodder. Whether he was comparing him to Satan or calling him a donkey, nothing livened up a Chávez speech or an episode of his TV show Alo Presidente like an extended tirade against George W. Bush. After a botched coup attempt against him in 2002, Chávez routinely accused domestic political opponents of being part of a U.S.-backed coup to overthrow him. His main foreign-policy project, the ALBA economic union, was marketed to other Latin American countries as a way to counteract U.S. influence. Chávez’s bombastic anti-Bush statments earned him fans from Tegucigalpa to Tehran.

With the election of Obama — who is overwhelmingly popular in Latin America — the old zingers just don’t pack the same punch. As the Obama administration loosens restrictions against Cuba, it’s harder for Chávez to paint the United States as an all-purpose enemy of the Latin American left. The region’s new generation of leftists, like El Salvador’s recently elected president Mauricio Funes, are modeling themselves after Brazil’s Lula rather than Chávez or Castro. After last week’s coup in Honduras, Chávez tried to blame the United States for orchestrating the events, a claim that seemed a bit dubious after the Obama administration vocally supported ousted President Manuel Zelaya and invited him to Washington. With his foreign-policy influence declining along with the value of his oil reserves, Chávez might wish he had the old donkey to kick around again.

#4 Lech Kaczynski

Being wooed over missile defense. Anti-Russian and pro-American almost to a fault, the Polish president came to power promising to strengthen his countries ties to the West. Kaczynski’s ardor paid dividends for Bush in 2008 when Poland, over angry Russian objections, agreed to host part of a planned U.S. missile- defense shield on its territory in exchange for aid for military modernization. In doing so, the Polish government set back relations with Russia and provoked the Kremlin into stationing missiles in Kaliningrad, just across the Polish border.

The relationship between Obama and Kaczynski did not start off a on good foot. The two leaders spoke over the phone soon after Obama’s election, after which Kaczynski immediately told the press that Obama had pledged to continue work on the shield. The U.S. president-elect said he said no such thing.

Several months later, Obama sent a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev offering to halt work on the shield in exchange for cooperation on other issues. The apparent misunderstanding has had domestic political repercussions for Kaczynski, helping the Polish opposition caricature him as a bit of a buffoon. His government has also faced several embarrassing reports of senior politicians — including Kaczyinski’s twin brother Jaroslaw, a former prime minister — making racist jokes about Obama.

This week, the Obama administration approved the sale of timber in a roadless national forest in Alaska. The Tongass National Forest is a 17 million acre temperate rain forest in southeast Alaska, which is home to both endangered species and native Alaskan tribes. It is the largest temperate rain forest in the United States.

Have we learned nothing? FAIL. Total FAIL. That’s all I can say.

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the economy—more than in the past few weeks. It seems as though we have reached some sort of economic tipping point, where things have gotten better, but won’t fully turn around or will get much worse unless the Obama administration takes some further serious steps to correct things. Rising unemployment, gains in foreclosures, as well as a constant lack in lending (which in my opinion will always be a practice that sees problems). A recent NYTimes article explained it well:

It is true that more time is needed to show results for policies that are currently in place, including stimulus spending, foreclosure relief and the bank rescue. But it is also clear that joblessness and defaults are worse now than was assumed when those policies were formed. So the need for more federal help is all but inevitable, as are political fights over renewed aid. President Obama may want to avoid those battles until health reform passes, but he still should lay the groundwork in three main areas.

If Obama doesn’t step it up, things will indeed go further south than before. Paul Krugman, the Nobel-winning economist, explained the stimulus trap so well that I encourage anyone to read it. He also had some pretty sound advice:

What Mr. Obama needs to do is level with the American people. He needs to admit that he may not have done enough on the first try. He needs to remind the country that he’s trying to steer the country through a severe economic storm, and that some course adjustments — including, quite possibly, another round of stimulus — may be necessary.

Obama seems to have totally moved on from this subject, and he did until it came up again in June after the job loss reports came in. It was a serious wake up call to the administration—one that Joe Biden jumped on too quickly. But whether the administration misread the economy or simply didn’t do enough, is a moot point. In concurrence with Paul Krugman, Bill Maher, and many other voices, I hope Obama has the guts to do what needs to be done, because he has not done enough.

I have recently received some criticism that the majority of stories are too one sided on this site. This post was somewhat in response to the comments. It will not be the last of its kind.

#3 Álvaro Uribe

Unconditional support in the drug war. The Colombian president was a staunch pro-U.S. voice in a region where Bush had few friends. The affection was mutual. Bush authorized millions in military aid for Colombia’s war against drug cartels and leftist rebels and awarded Uribe the Presidential Medal of Freedom, citing his “immense personal courage and strength of character.”

These days, things aren’t quite so friendly. Obama campaigned on his opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia, citing human rights issues. There is also growing concern in the administration over Colombia’s methods in the war on drugs. An anonymous source told the Washington Post that at their meeting last week, Obama planned to question Uribe on a recent United Nations report that characterized extrajudicial killings by Colombian security forces as “cold-blooded, premeditated murder.”

Uribe has also lost the unique status he enjoyed under Bush, as Obama has made an active effort to improve relations with other Latin American leaders, including leftists. Both presidents say that progress continues to be made on the free-trade agreement and other issues, but the days when Colombia was the one reliable U.S. partner in South America are over.

Palin: 18th Ethics Complaint

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Outgoing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is facing yet another ethics complaint – the 18th against her and the very thing that helped to prompt her resignation.

Sarah Palin has to be one of the most interesting female politicians of all time. For better or for worse, she commands the media with stories of all different types. This particular complaint will only add to the recent fire sparked by her resignation.

The complaint alleges she abused her office by accepting a salary and using state staff while campaigning outside Alaska for the vice presidency. It doesn’t sound all that serious, considering it’s her 18th complaint. The real problem is that it’s the third complaint filed against her since she announced July 3 that she was stepping down.

There have been some different stories flying around the internet related to why she decided to resign (a few reasons here). Then there was Levi Johnston claiming she resigned because of money. Honestly, I’d agree with a handful of speculators that the real reason has yet to be discovered. I’m hoping for some sort of film trilogy out of Hollywood that stars Sarah Palin—Defender of the Western Seaboard! Screenplay to come.

Iran Blames Plane Crash on U.S.

TEHRAN, Iran — An Iranian passenger plane carrying 168 people crashed a quarter-hour after takeoff Wednesday, smashing into a field northwest of the capital and shattering to pieces. State television said all on board were killed.

Caspian Airlines is a Russian-Iranian joint venture founded in 1993. Iran has frequent plane crashes often because of bad maintenance of its aging aircraft. Tehran blames the problem in part on U.S. sanctions that prevent Iran from getting spare parts for some planes. Caspian Airlines, however, uses Russian-made Tupolevs whose maintenance would be less impaired by American sanctions.

First of all, let me say that yes, of course this is a tragedy and I mourn for the families. Now, to focus on the government of Iran—please stop blaming every damn thing that goes wrong in your country on the United States. First it was the mosque bomb (which really wasn’t first at all), then it was the post-election riots, and now this. Not only is it getting old, but a majority of the time, the claims are utterly factless.

This particurlar allegation, that the U.S. is responsible due to sanctions, is mostly if not completely irrelevant. While it may be true that they cannot receive spare parts for their aircraft, the plane that crashed was a jet from the Russian-Iranian joint venture. Shouldn’t they be receiving their parts from Russia—if not manufacturing the parts themselves? “Down with the U.S., because we can’t solve our own problems and are losing control of our educated and resourceful citizens who yearn for the freedoms of said country!”

As you know, I typically don’t post good things here, but when they’re happening because of something so full of failure, it’s a must.

jeremyscahill:

By Jeremy Scahill

Earlier this week, I wrote an article based on interviews I conducted with two of the leading anti-torture attorneys working to hold the Bush administration accountable for its crimes: Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union. That article was called Top Anti-Torture Lawyers Criticize AG Holder’s Torture Probe, Saying It May Let ‘Higher-Ups’ Off. Another lawyer, who has worked tirelessly on this issue has weighed in with a different perspective that I think is worth reading.

At Harper’s, the well-respected constitutional and military law expert Scott Horton makes the case that any Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate torture will, by nature of their investigation, end up investigating senior Bush administration officials:

As soon as the special prosecutor gets into the facts relating to the use of the Bush-approved techniques, he will deal with the claims of interrogators and deeply implicated contractors like James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen that they were acting under instructions from higher up the chain and in accordance with guidance delivered by senior CIA officials and political appointees, both oral and written. The special prosecutor will have to examine the bona fides of these claims and investigate the guidance that was given and whether it comported with law. In other words, the conduct of Bush Administration officials may well not be implicated in the specific tasking document issued by Holder, but it would be raised by way of affirmative defense by the interrogators and contractors. The special prosecutor will not be able ultimately to avoid looking at these questions if he or she pursues the job credibly. And if Holder were to direct that certain individuals are immune from review by the special prosecutor, he would make the entire exercise into a travesty. The inference that higher-ups won’t be caught up in the investigation is, in my view, unwarranted.

Dear Mr. President: You’re A Fraud

JULY 14, 2009 — U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, set to deploy to Afghanistan, says he shouldn’t have to go. His reason? Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States.

Back in the day (June 2008), this argument rumor caused quite a stir for the soon to be president. Fortunately for him and the rest of the country, the record was set straight—multiple times. After a few ignorant citizens ignored the facts and took the issue to the courts, the record was set straight—again. In fact, the Supreme Court even decided flat out not to hear that case (Ironically, if one remembers, that particular case claimed both Obama and McCain were ineligible for the presidency). Now it looks as though we will be re-examinig the entire issue.

Supporters of a case that disputes the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency claimed a small victory today when U.S. District Judge David O. Carter told them to fix their paperwork and that he would listen to “the merits” of their case.

Why? I don’t know. However, I am hopeful that the judge involved is merely doing the plaintiff a solid, and hearing them out. Although, I don’t see how the judge could possibly examine the case based on how many courts have already heard the issue. As you’ve already seen here, this wouldn’t be the first time the courts have wasted their time in looking for the facts on Obama’s citizenship. Another round, anyone?

Update: In case anyone was wondering, I did a little research on the number of the cases that have been filed regarding this issue. I have found twenty-one (21) separate cases, thirteen (13) of which were either denied or dismissed, and the rest (8) which concluded with no outcome (except one case where the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff). More cases exist that I have not specifically read. My advice? Move on, disgruntled voters.

#1 Benjamin Netanyahu

The benefit of the doubt. Netanyahu took power (for the second time) just two months after Obama, but the two have never been in sync. Obama has been far more outspoken than his predecessors on the issue of settlement construction in the West Bank, including the so-called “natural growth” of existing communities, which Netanyahu is determined to keep on the table. “What the hell do they want from me?” he reportedly told an associate after a particularly contentious White House meeting.

The Israeli government claims that a tacit agreement was reached with the Bush administration that would have allowed natural growth to continue. The Obama team counters that no such agreement exists, though Bush’s former deputy national security advisor, Elliot Abrams, says that it did.

Despite the disagreement, Netanyahu’s team stresses that “there is no crisis” between the administrations and progress is being made on the settlements issue. However the current impasse is resolved, it’s clear the United States was far more cautious about issuing ultimatums to Israel in the Bush years.

#1 Silvio Berlusconi

His old buddy. In 2008, Time’s Jeff Israely called the Italian president Bush’s “Last Best Friend on Earth.” A bit of an exaggeration perhaps, but it’s true that Berlusconi stuck with Bush when nearly every other European leader (and Italian politician) was scoring cheap political points by attacking him as a reckless cowboy.

Berlusconi provided political cover for his American friend by supporting the war in Iraq while most of Western Europe opposed it, but the close relationship between the two leaders seemed to go beyond politics. The conservative Christian from Texas and the lecherous billionaire might seem an odd pair, but Berlusconi was a frequent guest at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, and Bush called the Italian leader a “man of sincerity and principle.”

Berlusconi committed an early gaffe with Obama, calling the African-American president “young, handsome, and also tanned.” There are also reports that U.S.-Italian relations have cooled somewhat and that the Obama administration is irritated by Berlusconi’s close relations with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. The United States also supports expanding the Group of Eight or consolidating its European members, a move that is likely to irritate Italy, which depends on G-8 membership for international legitimacy.