Homeland Insecurity

About: ctv.ca | border comments spark diplomatic kerfuffle


First Janet Napolitano the head of Homeland Security implies that returning veterans are potential terrorists & then she demonstrates that she doesn't know shit about our own borders. I guess she's just another political appointee without any credentials for the job - it's just plain fishy.

Tags

  1. fishy cunt
  2. hyperpartisan
  3. 24
  4. tortue

Comments


Mark de LA says
See also The border for dummies...


Mark de LA says
The Politico in Obama muddles torture message: ... President Barack Obama’s attempt to project legal and moral clarity on coercive CIA interrogation methods has instead done the opposite — creating confusion and political vulnerability over an issue that has inflamed both the left and right.

In the most recent instance, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a memo to the intelligence community that Bush-era interrogation practices yielded had "high-value information,” then omitted that admission from a public version of his assessment.

That leaves a top Obama administration official appearing to validate claims by former Vice President Dick Cheney that waterboarding and other techniques the White House regards as torture were effective in preventing terrorist attacks. And the press release created the impression the administration was trying to suppress this conclusion.

...
this story gaining legs.....like in 11719

Seth says
The only thing that might be interesting is if the administration actually releases the memo that claims actionable intelligence was derived from the enhanced interrogation techniques, ie torture.  Then maybe we could have a real dialogue about this without the hyperpartisan static. Somehow i doubt that will happen ... so you can gig the Obama administration for not releasing the pertinant memo ... or you can lay the blame at the feet of the secrecy of the intelligence agencies.  The question, that 24 raises, of whether torture can be useful to save lives is one that does need to be answered with actual examples not partisan bloviating ... one way or another.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-04-22 12:05:38 11834

MR says "this story is gaining legs", but it's just promo for the latest season of 24.  Hopefully Bauer will die of his WMD infection, the series will be canceled, and the whole bru-ha-ha will die down.  Oh shit, then it will resurrect on Foxnews as a Liberal/hollywood conspiracy to censor entertainment.

You must be watching too much TV fiction! Google has ~ 5000 news articles on Obama's torture confusion. Perhaps you should read a few of them instead of watching reruns of 24. The cartoon at the top of the item stands!

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-04-22 11:48:31 11834
source: MR above
"Janet Napolitano the head of Homeland Security implies that returning veterans are potential terrorists ...
... which is a twist of what was leaked to Drudge. Here is the actual memo, produced by the  Extremism and Radicalization Branch of Homeland Security, Analysis Division and coordinated with the FBI.  A branch created, no doubt, after the right wing extremism of Timothy McVey caused the bombing of the Oklahoma Fed.  Do you doubt that these right wing extremist groups still exist?  Don't you want Homeland security to keep a watch on them?  Do you doubt that they will try to enlist disgruntled returning veterans for their military experiences? 

This is one wierd complaint here and i wish you would explain it.
body { background: #FFFFFF; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; }
So are inner city black & hispanic youth gangs driven by drugs & money.  Do you suppose she mentioned that?  It is a matter of what you put your magnifying glass on. There is really no need to besmirch veterans. The only thing that disaffects veterans is the way they are getting treated by Obama & his administration & the democrats while they were overseas.

Mark de LA says
Partisan is good otherwise where only one party exists you get things Like the Third Reich & the Soviet Union, but only one party! Go there if you think only one point of view is good.


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-04-22 14:41:22 11834
The Washington Post has a good summary article and analysis of recent events sans all the partisan twisterations.  There is no doubt that Obama wants this to go away ... he sees it as a distraction from his agenda ... and it is.  But he has no control of Congress.  Nor for that matter can he dictate prosecutions to the justice departement (that's not in the Post analysis). As for his own policy re totute that is cristal clear: he has outlawed it.  There are no indications that his actions now are at odds with his words during the campaign, MR's imaginings notwithstanding. 
Your use of the word partisan & subsequent spews are a real waste of time, don't support your argument & I usually skip them. Here is a little more plausable scenario about what is going on with the whitehouse torturee flip-flopping:
Krauthammer: ... The administration has put out stories about how Obama agonized about the release of the documents. Well, if you were born yesterday, you'll believe that.

You look at the political expediency and the political objective of these leaks. Obama was elected by running against George Bush, even though he wasn't on the ballot. He has been running against Bush in the first 100 days. He ran against Bush when he was in Europe and in Trinidad. He's making himself the foil against Bush.

And you would expect that has to end after a few months. Well, with the torture issue, it doesn't end. It's a perfect way to keep Bush alive as the permanent nemesis and foil of Obama.

And what he's doing is by strategically releasing a memo here, a memo there, he creates a firestorm, which is all predictable, which is not going to end up in prosecutions. It will end up in a truth commission.

You will have all kinds of congressional hearings. You will have all kinds of commissions. You will have leaks. You will have televised, very dramatic testimony.

This issue, the Bush issue, will be alive for a long time.

And the reason Obama is trying to look magnanimous in saying he won't prosecute the CIA officials is because, obviously, there is no way to prosecute an official who acted in good faith. And even their lawyers, who simply offered an opinion, you're going to [prosecute a] lawyer who simply offered an opinion?

The issue, I think, of prosecutions, is a side issue here. The real issue is the hearings, the commissions, and the leaks that we will have in the future.


... Obama still needs Bush as a boogeyman (Rules for Radicals #5(ridicule) & #12(pick a target...  )) since he doesn't have much positive in his administration to talk about.


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-04-22 12:25:09 11834
M 2009-04-22 12:03:45 11834
seth 2009-04-22 11:48:31 11834
source: MR above
"Janet Napolitano the head of Homeland Security implies that returning veterans are potential terrorists ...
... which is a twist of what was leaked to Drudge. Here is the actual memo, produced by the  Extremism and Radicalization Branch of Homeland Security, Analysis Division and coordinated with the FBI.  A branch created, no doubt, after the right wing extremism of Timothy McVey caused the bombing of the Oklahoma Fed.  Do you doubt that these right wing extremist groups still exist?  Don't you want Homeland security to keep a watch on them?  Do you doubt that they will try to enlist disgruntled returning veterans for their military experiences? 

This is one wierd complaint here and i wish you would explain it.
So are inner city black & hispanic youth gangs driven by drugs & money.  Do you suppose she mentioned that?  It is a matter of what you put your magnifying glass on. There is really no need to besmirch veterans. The only thing that disaffects veterans is the way they are getting treated by Obama & his administration & the democrats while they were overseas.
A worthless change of topic.
Nope, not a change of topic. It points to a target that perhaps gores some one of your demographics.  Inner city youth gangs are a lot closer to terrorists than disciplined soldiers are who put their lives at risk defending this country. 


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-04-22 13:42:11 11834
MR 2009-04-22 13:08:32 11834
Arguing from the series 24 makes about as much sense as arguing from all of the current & past cop TV programs which show the cops miss-behaving in order to convict & get the bad people.  The real point is that Obama during the campaign bad-mouthed the intelligence agencies, the military & GWB & now he has to live with his words or look like a hypocrite politician who says whatever is expedient during a campaign.  Perhaps the people will wake up next time & not worship false idols.

Nobody is "arguing from the series" ... god i hate these continual strawman diversions.  24 does dramatize the question ... watch the new series, it is actually interesting ... Bower will probably be tortuing Almeda next week.

The current real news is about Obama making  some statements that could be construed to imply hat his administration was not going to prosecute the last administration for torture related offenses.  He then clarified that the prosecution was up to the justice departement.  In fact it is ... the justice department is suposed to be indeendant and not run by political vendettas.  Raging on that is just more static.  The only interesting real question was raised by Cheney: Does tortue work or not?  It seems that there are some memos that bear on that topic.  I want to see those memos.
Then don't bring up 24!  You are such a nuance. First Obama said he wasn't interested in prosecution. (Let's look forward) Then he got shit from his constituents on the George Soros left. Then he leaves it up to his attorney general. WTF, do you think you are kidding. Watch out, hero worship melts the logical faculties & causes misspelling! (6 in your last).


Mark de LA says
Maybe a truth commission will reveal how many Democrats approved of the so-called torture methods as well:
source: ...

FOX News has learned there were more than 30 meetings and briefings with Congress on the subject since 2002. 

The first such briefing dealt with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, Al Qaeda's operations chief who ran the training camps in Afghanistan were the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now House speaker, attended along with then-Rep. Porter Goss, Fla., (who later became CIA director), but did not raise any objections, sources said. 

The briefings were given until 2006 to the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate. That could cover Sen. John Rockefeller, W.Va., and Rep. Jane Harman, Calif., both Democrats, as well as Sen. Pat Roberts, Kan., Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., Sen. Richard Shelby, Ala., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Mich., all Republicans. 

Defenders of the interrogation program note that if Congress had wanted to kill the program, all it had to do was withhold funding, which didn't happen

...

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-04-22 15:45:35 11834
well i guess it's a matter of if you believe Dan Balz of the Washing Post or whether you believe Charles Krauthammer of Foxnews.  As this is about the third hack job i have read from Krauthammer i tend to favor the former.  If you like to impute malicious intent to Obama, well i guess you are quite confortable with sucking on the truthiness of the latter.  While both  analyses relie on unsupported opinion and unnamed sources rather than hard facts in evidance, i think you could (and probably should) lend more credance to the one with the least useage of propoganda words.  Hmmm ... which one is that?

Hmmm.... 7 misspellings in this ... the hero worship is increasing! Krauthammer also writes for the Washington Post! ; your transparent maligning of Foxnews notwithstanding. With Obama there are no hard facts or truth because most of what he says has a truth half-life of 1/2 to 3/4 of a news cycle. Lets revisit this post after the "truth commission" gets under way & see if Krauthammer is right! Let's see how far into the Obama administration BHO goes before he actually takes ownership of his own mistakes & policies.
.

P. Off says
Maybe we should just act like Christians & turn the other neck. (;-p)

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-04-23 10:38:49 11834
source: Jim Angle of FOXNews.com notes
Defenders of the interrogation program note that if Congress had wanted to kill the program, all it had to do was withhold funding, which didn't happen
Yes, and i would like to note that back then in 2002 well before the Abr Ghraib scandel broke we were living in a different world.  Everybody was scared shitless of terrorists.  For the minority party on the intelligence comitte to have lobbied (in veign) to withold funding based upon classified information that they couldnt divulge would have been politically impossible
Apparently in Nov 2002 Republicans held only a 6-seat difference in the senate.
source: ...

Republicans currently hold a six-seat majority in the House. Democrats had a one-seat majority in the Senate, prior to the death of Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota in a plane crash last month. Political observers expect a tight race for control of Congress. They say the United States appears to be as politically divided as it was during the contested 2000 presidential race.


...
But, whatever happened to voting your conscience & what you think is right? You are getting trapped in your own arguments. Maybe a witch hunt will expose some of the absurdities. Next time let's just chop off their heads. Intelligence is like making sausage you really don't want to watch it being made.


Mark de LA says
MR 2009-04-23 11:15:56 11834
source: ...

In a letter to his intelligence community colleagues last Thursday, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair described those briefings. “From 2002 through 2006 when the use of these techniques ended, the leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to Executive Branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques.”


...
The Democrats had a majority during some of those years!
ibid: ...

Other Republicans have pointed out that with the exception of Blair, the Obama administration has defending the policies using political figures – like Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod – rather than top national security advisers.

“You can imagine what it would have looked like, if on a sensitive intelligence matter involving the CIA and this controversy, if we sent Karl Rove out to do this briefing. And that’s in effect what’s happened here,” says a high-ranking official from the Bush White House. “And I assume that’s because they saw it primarily as a political issue – because it’s being debated inside as a political issue –because it’s about appeasing the left, whose support they sought during the campaign. And Axelrod is more of an expert on that crowd that anybody else. It also says to me he was in all the meetings where they were debating this question – whether or not Obama had better go forward with some kind of investigation.”


...
i.e. this shit is all political witch hunting for effect as previously stated by Krauthammer!

Seth says
source: MR above
this shit is all political witch hunting for effect ...
Well i can certainly agree, however i don't expect politicians to stop being politicians.  Thing is, if the US tortures without getting useful results, then it should be stopped and it should be seen to have been stopped.  Again, for me, the only interesting thing is finding the memos that Cheney was talking about here.  If enhanced interrogation techniques yield useful intel, then we should rethink them.  However perhaps Chaney is shading his facts again as he has been known to do. The DailyKos seems to think that this is the case.
source: daily kos
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.
This is a case where it is hard to find the actual facts because of the static.  I would like to see at leas one documented case where intel from torture stopped a terrorist event.

Mark de LA says
Here is a WSJ Opinion Journal item that thinks that Obama is going to suffer from the politics of torture. Read Presidential Poison - His invitation to indict Bush officials will haunt Obama's Presidency

I would like to have members of Congress & those briefed put under oath & paraded before the public in a truth commission just to see what happens. We will have plenty of comedy for the rest of BHO's term.


Seth says
MR 2009-04-23 12:59:23 11834
Here is a WSJ Opinion Journal item that thinks that Obama is going to suffer from the politics of torture. Read Presidential Poison - His invitation to indict Bush officials will haunt Obama's Presidency

I would like to have members of Congress & those briefed put under oath & paraded before the public in a truth commission just to see what happens. We will have plenty of comedy for the rest of BHO's term.

Well yes there is no doubt that Obama would like to have this go away.  He already did his part by changing the policy.  What is driving this is Congress and perhaps the justice department.  In other related news, Pelosi denies that she was specifically told that waterboarding etc was being used, and then gave voice to what i said above that she had no possible political way to stop it.  I believe her just about as much as i believe Cheney.  But, strangely enough i still find myself  mouthing the republican talking point:  show us the memos regarding effectiveness.  Cheney should cite a specific known memo, and call the bluff ... in fact if he remains vague and ambiguous, i will start suspecting that they do not exist or that his interpertation of them is twisted.

Seth says
Here is one side of this issue from the FBI agent who actually interrogated Abu Zubaydah ...
source: Ali Soufan an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

... read the whole article, it is startling in the level of detail and names named.  These are claims that can be fact checked.  Rebuttal Mr Cheney?

Seth says
MR 2009-04-23 12:59:23 11834
Here is a WSJ Opinion Journal item that thinks that Obama is going to suffer from the politics of torture. Read Presidential Poison - His invitation to indict Bush officials will haunt Obama's Presidency

I would like to have members of Congress & those briefed put under oath & paraded before the public in a truth commission just to see what happens. We will have plenty of comedy for the rest of BHO's term.

Btw, Obama made no "invitation to indict Bush officials".  When bloviating its wise to stick to the facts.

Mark de LA says
Yep, release it all. Since BHO doesn't mind telling the terrorists what we will & will not do then let's release what we got from them.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-04-24 09:55:37 11834
Another excellent article by the Washigton Post: In Obama's Inner Circle, Debate Over Memos' Release Was Intense.
Yep, not much there that we didn't already know.

Mark de LA says
Those are the words of editorial writer. You should learn some English & understand what's going on. Just because BHO doesn't come out & say "I invite Congress to indict Bush officials" doesn't mean the behavior of his staff & party is not trying to do so. You always seem to take things literally which are metaphor & analogy & within the editorial perrogatives of the writers.



Mark de LA says
~


Mark de LA says
The cycle of collective memory loss & partisan witch-hunting is done well in this op-ed of Victor Davis Hanson ending with:
source: ... So we know this predictable pattern of flexibility and accommodation. From 2001 to 2003, Bush officials were deemed serious and sober, and reformed the intelligence agencies to stop the incompetence that led to 9/11. By consensus, they took decisive measures to stop new enemies in a new sort of war — in which terrorists out of uniform, blending in with civilians, had devised ways of infiltrating the United States to murder thousands. And that consensus kept us safe.

Then, in the luxury of that very safety, and with the recrudescence of partisanship, from 2004 to 2009, our once-praised guardians were redefined by their Democratic critics as Gestapo-like torturers who created a Stalag in Cuba. And the terrorists, this new story went, were unfortunates bundled away for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, in the vicinity of bin Laden’s Hindu Kush compounds.

And we know in advance the dénouement of this tragicomedy. Should we lose another 3,000 in a morning, and should the attackers have appeared earlier on wire-taps, been released from Guantanamo, or escaped notice due to new “firewalls,” then once more we will go into the cycle of recrimination.

The only constant is that those who are most loudly screaming for the heads of the Bush officials will be silent should the carnage return — or perhaps they will be the most vocal in allotting blame to the Obama administration, which listened to them. No doubt they will demand postfacto hearings on topics such as “Who let him out of Guantanamo?” as they chant, “Obama slept, we wept!”

...
We wonder how disclosing top secrets of our country's strategy & methods of collecting intelligence on terrorists can possibly benefit anyone except our enemies. Why not impeach Obama.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-04-27 14:53:13 11834
source: MR above
We wonder how disclosing top secrets of our country's strategy & methods of collecting intelligence on terrorists can possibly benefit anyone except our enemies.
There was no disclosure of new strategy and methods in the recent memos.  All of that information had already been out there and actually part of common knowledge.
Then why disclose it at all? Why the purported pictures? Remember when Abu Graib was first published there were riots & recriminations.  Is that what Obama wants? To say that we are not going to use any of these techniques is to give aid & comfort to the enemy.   I would prefer that the U.S. keep these things in the questionmark domain like will we use a nuclear bomb if pushed too far - as a deterrant or psychological factor.  Now it just gives the enemy more ammunition - they just don't have to talk at all any more - no stress, no mess.


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-04-27 16:02:46 11834
Torture is better used change beliefs, not necessarily to elicit information.  If i toture you enough i can get you to say anything. 
source: McClatchy

"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."

It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly ��" Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 ��" according to a newly released Justice Department document.

"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.

...

If you believe that you will be tortured until you come up with the truth then it becomes effective providing the interrogator is congruent with the threat & has corroborating evidence & can check out what you say.
I suspect that someone who can speak like a native & can follow the cues like the guy in Lie to Me TV show does (if that is an accurate technology) would yield interesting info. The problem is the setting & the fact that the context is always prisoner-jailer. I'm fairly certain that the CIA is ahead of me on that thought.  What I want from Congress & the intelligence committees is the minutes & transcript of the congressional briefings going back to 2001 on the subject.  Let's see what Pelosi really said in those meetings.

Seth says
MR 2009-04-27 17:29:04 11834
seth 2009-04-27 16:02:46 11834
Torture is better used change beliefs, not necessarily to elicit information.  If i toture you enough i can get you to say anything. 
source: McClatchy

"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.

"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."

It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly ��" Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 ��" according to a newly released Justice Department document.

"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.

...

If you believe that you will be tortured until you come up with the truth then it becomes effective providing the interrogator is congruent with the threat & has corroborating evidence & can check out what you say.
I suspect that someone who can speak like a native & can follow the cues like the guy in Lie to Me TV show does (if that is an accurate technology) would yield interesting info. The problem is the setting & the fact that the context is always prisoner-jailer. I'm fairly certain that the CIA is ahead of me on that thought.  What I want from Congress & the intelligence committees is the minutes & transcript of the congressional briefings going back to 2001 on the subject.  Let's see what Pelosi really said in those meetings.
Thing is there are just too many experts telling us that torture does not yield reliable information.  But, yes, there are known ways to elicit information.  I doubt that Lie to Me is accurate, but there are probably techniques like it that are effective.  I also find myself not wanting to believe that our government was trying to force false confessions to justify the Iraq connection to Al Quaeda.  But, let us face it, if that is the case, then it should be exposed, and heads should roll.  However, me doubts that, any such damning facts will ever see the light of day.

Seth says
MR 2009-04-27 17:17:52 11834
seth 2009-04-27 14:53:13 11834
source: MR above
We wonder how disclosing top secrets of our country's strategy & methods of collecting intelligence on terrorists can possibly benefit anyone except our enemies.
There was no disclosure of new strategy and methods in the recent memos.  All of that information had already been out there and actually part of common knowledge.
Then why disclose it at all? Why the purported pictures? Remember when Abu Graib was first published there were riots & recriminations.  Is that what Obama wants? To say that we are not going to use any of these techniques is to give aid & comfort to the enemy.   I would prefer that the U.S. keep these things in the questionmark domain like will we use a nuclear bomb if pushed too far - as a deterrant or psychological factor.  Now it just gives the enemy more ammunition - they just don't have to talk at all any more - no stress, no mess.

Actually these particular memos were the subject of a freedom of information act and were more than likely going to be released by a court order anyway.  Obama just decided not to fight the order and released them as requested.  This is part of the transparency that you are complaining about in other items, but here it has become a target of criticism.  Me thinks it is example of the "get you comming or going" petty fault finding of a party which has lost its way.

Seth says
source: MR above
You should probably look up Al-Queda in Iraq up in the Wikipedia for more information that you will get out of cartoons.

Check your history, the link the Bush administration was tortureing to prove in the 2002-2004 time frame predated the existance of Al-Queda in Iraq.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-04-29 09:54:12 11834
This about sums it up ... thanks TheWeek.com ...
Not a Problem, a feature.


You should probably look up Al-Queda in Iraq up in the Wikipedia for more information that you will get out of cartoons.


See Also

  1. Thought Surprise, surprise the media follow scripts too! with 17 viewings related by tag "24".
  2. Thought Where did all the TARP funds go? with 2 viewings related by tag "hyperpartisan".
  3. Thought A Congress of Bozos with 0 viewings related by tag "hyperpartisan".