LIVE: Let's Watch Republicans Yell 'Woke!' At Pentagon Officials And Call It Oversight
Drag Queen War-ry Hour.
There is literally an article in Politico this week about how Pentagon officials are practicing how to respond to Republican nutcases who just babble the word "woke" at them and act like that is reasonable, adult oversight of the military.
Today, Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin are going before the House Defense Appropriations panel, and they will get to try out their answers. We've been here before. But with the modern Republican Party we can always guarantee that this time will be stupider than the last.
Come, let us liveblog together:
10:15: Oh we guess it's already gotten started, but the cameras only just now came on. GOP Rep. Kay Granger is speaking, nothing real stupid has been said yet (that we've heard).
10:19: Austin says two of his priorities at the Pentagon are taking care of their people and teamwork. We hope you know that means WOKE PRONOUN PARTIES.
10:25: Austin is just giving his opening statement, do you need us to liveblog that? You do not. Just FYI. You probably also don't need us to liveblog Milley's opener. Stronger allies, support NATO, stick with Ukraine until the end, "Russia's cruel war of choice," and so forth.
10:28: Milley says we are not going to war with Russia or China anytime soon, thank yew very much, shut up to all idiots who say we are.
10:35: Now we start with GOP Rep. Ken Calvert, who would like Austin to tell us why we are getting rid of a bunch of Navy ships if we want to fight CHIIIIIINA. Austin is like man how many boats can a guy have, we just wanna have the right number of boats, why you wanna have too many boats?
"Ship count matters," says Calvert. Sounds like a woke slogan.
10:44: Republican Kay Granger says our enemies are getting much cuddlier with countries in South America and wants to know what we are doing to deal with that. Does not even say CARAVAN!!1! or anything weird, it's like these Republicans do not even want to be on "Hannity" tonight.
10:54: Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, wants to make sure Congress gets credit for giving more money to the Pentagon than even Trump or Biden has asked for. Remember who your real dad is, Pentagon!
11:05: We almost feel like it is newsworthy that a hearing in a Republican-controlled Congress is fairly normal and people are being respectful, even Republicans to the Democrats from the Democrat administration. Maybe somebody promised the Republicans that if they could be semi-normal for a whole hour they would get a pizza party.
11:19: This hearing has not had the word "woke" one time yet.
11:27: Mike Garcia, a Republican from California, is talking about a bill he sponsored, now a law, to make it easier for military spouses to take their professional licenses across state lines when they have to move. Also has serious concerns with how little money lower level enlisted people are making, many of them far below 32K per year.
All of this sounds suspiciously like governing and we don't like it.
11:31: Garcia seemed to kind of want Milley to either blame the way Afghanistan ended on Trump or Biden, and Milley was like nah, that was a 20-year war, we have only begun to grapple with how fucked up that all was and why. And Garcia was like "Well said" and again he is a Republican and we are just going to keep asking what is happening and wonder when James Comer is going to invade this committee he is not on to declare that he's found Hunter Biden's penis in the backyard and let's go get it.
11:41: MARIO DIAZ-BALART, A REPUBLICAN; No more blank checks in Ukraine! What is the end-state for Ukraine?
MILLEY: Uhhhh, Ukraine is a sovereign nation and stays that way and wins and Joe Biden has been clear on that?
We guess the chair of the committee, Ken Calvert, said something idiot at the beginning before the cameras came on about "no more blank checks for Ukraine."
You know, because of how we've been giving Zelenskyy blank checks and saying "GO WILD, BABY! DEFEND YOURSELF FROM RUSSIA, LIKE A WILD CHILD!"
These people are garbage.
11:54: There was just a mild-mannered discussion about the issue of extremism in the ranks, but there was nobody that yelled at the military was attacking conservatives. Now Marcy Kaptur from Ohio is talking. She is giving out a book recommendation!
12:01: Hal Rogers, Republican from Kentucky, said he wanted to talk about the elephant in the room, and we figured he meant how under Joe Biden troops do Drag Queen Story Hour instead of Basic Training, but instead he wanted Milley and Austin to assess Xi Jinping's recent trip to Moscow to play with Putin.
12:08: Oh good, it is Chris Stewart from Utah. He's kinda very stupid.
He's "concerned" about where things are going in Ukraine and wants to know if Ukraine winning means they get Crimea back. He is "concerned" about that. (This is Russian propaganda, the idea that Crimea should stay Russian.)
12:13: Chris Stewart wants to know about the "culture" of the military and what's "broken" between fathers and sons to make them not hit their recruitment goals anymore.
Milley says we're actually at a 50-year high on retention, so ... that's a thing. Says recruiting is definitely difficult. Says COVID plays a role. Recruiters can't go to high schools and trick kids into convince kids to join the military when they're home because of COVID.
We feel like Chris Stewart really wanted to yank the "woke" chain, but he's kinda dumb, as we said, and we feel like in our experience of watching him, he kinda follows the other congressmen's leads when it comes to how nutcase he acts.
11:18: And now they are finished and nobody said woke!
WEIRD. Tip your bartenders if you like liveblogs!
Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter right here!
And once that doesn't exist, I'm also giving things a go at the Mastodon (@evanhurst@newsie.social) and at Post!
Have you heard that Wonkette DOES NOT EXIST without your donations? Please hear it now, and if you have ever enjoyed a Wonkette article, throw us some bucks, or better yet, SUBSCRIBE!
New York Times, Fresh Out Of Mirrors, Tries To Solve Why US Invaded Iraq Whodunnit!
They're all trying to find the guy who did this.
Yesterday marked the 20th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. Among the many retrospectives, the New York Times, which did so much to boost the war with its reporting straight from inside Dick Cheney's butt, asked the important question, "20 Years On, a Question Lingers About Iraq: Why Did the US Invade?"
That's some lingering question, all right! The piece, by foreign correspondent Max Fisher, wonders not about the long-term effects of the war, or why the US occupation went so badly (it's a column, after all, not a shelf of books), but gets right down to the question of what motivated George W. Bush and his merry band of neocons to go to war in Iraq in the first place. Was it really about the 9/11 attacks? Certainly Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy Defense secretary, wanted Saddam Hussein to have been involved, as did others in the administration, including Dubya himself. But there wasn't any evidence, because Saddam wasn't involved and al Qaeda actually kind of hated him because he was a secularist anyway.
But hey, how about oil? Gulf War 1 was all about keeping Kuwait's oil safe for democracy, but nah, to the eternal frustration of Donald Trump, we didn't take the oil that clearly belonged to us.
Fisher also examines the idea that neoconservatives, wanting to reestablish US dominance after the Cold War, thought Iraq would make a dandy proving ground for the neoconservatives who filled nearly all the administration's foreign policy jobs. It's not so much that they came into 2001 hankering for regime change in Iraq, but after 9/11, Iraq looked like a terrific chance for the US to remake the Middle East through American force and the brilliance of the free market. (For some really depressing reading on how bizarrely committed US occupation leaders were to that fairy tale, see also Rajiv Chandrasekaran's excellent book Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone.)
And then of course there's the Weapons of Mass Destruction fiction. Fischer suggests, far too generously, that Team Bush didn't deliberately lie its way into a war, because while they "often misrepresented" the evidence they had,
meeting notes and other accounts do not show them as plotting to sell a weapons threat that they knew was fictitious, nor as having been misled by faulty intelligence.
Rather, the record suggests something more banal: A critical mass of senior officials all came to the table wanting to topple Mr. Hussein for their own reasons, and then talked one another into believing the most readily available justification.
“The truth,” Mr. Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair in 2003, “is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason.”
While we're willing to believe that groupthink, wishful thinking, and self-deception played a role in some of the Bush warheads' thinking, Team Bush also did too much outright lying and spinning to sell the war to dismiss the notion they knew what they were up to. Just see Michael Isikoff and David Corn's 2006 book Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, which we read for a Wonkette Book Club back when I still worked weekends.
And here's where Fisher skims entirely too quickly past his own paper's involvement. Look at this artfully broad summary:
Officials claimed that Mr. Hussein possessed, or would soon possess, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that he might intend to use against the United States. Those claims were carried, and amplified, by America’s major media outlets.
No mention here of the Times's role in building up the WMD fiction, like the notorious incident where the administration leaked the claim that Iraq had bought aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium. That was duly reported by the Times's Judith Miller on September 8, 2002. The very same day, Dick Cheney, who'd arranged the leak, went on "Meet the Press" and said the tubes amounted to "very clear evidence" Saddam was restarting his nuclear weapons program, saying, "There's a story in The New York Times this morning" about those darn aluminum tubes. Well there's your confirmation!
Again and again, the Times uncritically passed on administration claims, and helped build the impression that there was far more evidence of Iraqi WMDs than there was.
For a super fun time activity, try searching this weekend's story about why the US went to war for the terms "Judith Miller," "Ahmed Chalabi," "yellowcake uranium," or "aluminum tubes."
Look, I never said it would be a long activity.
We suppose the Times might argue that there was no need to say anything more than that vague line about how the press "carried, and amplified" the Bush team's deadly fibs, because that had less to do with why the administration went to war than with how it sold the lie to the American people. Besides, the Times already acknowledged in 2004 that some of its coverage "was not as rigorous as it should have been." They said they're sorry already, jeez. How many times will you meanies keep pointing out that such "problematic" coverage had disastrous consequences, with real people dying?
We're guessing probably in another five years, for the silver anniversary of the Iraq bunglefuck. Unless the Times manages to remember the role it played.
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 monthly so we can keep reminding you that twenty years ago was no picnic either, even if I had a hairline then.
Dianne Feinstein Fought Like Hell To Get The Truth Out About CIA Torture
She should get more love for it.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) announced yesterday that she won't seek reelection in 2024, so we'd like to take a moment to appreciate one of her indispensable acts of service to the USA: her battle to investigate and compile a complete record of the CIA's covert torture program during the George W. Bush administration.
We'll probably never see Bush or Dick Cheney face trial for taking America to the Dark Side — or further into it — in the name of fighting terrorism, to say nothing of the many lower level officials and operatives who took part in it. But thanks to the work of Feinstein, who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, we do at least have the 500-plus page executive summary and key findings of the report, released in 2014. The full report, running more than 6,700 pages, remains classified.
Feinstein told the New Yorker in 2015 that the torture report was the most important work of her career in the Senate, although as that story discusses at length, Feinstein and her colleagues in the investigation had to fight incredible resistance from the CIA, even though Leon Panetta, Barack Obama's appointee as CIA director, had initially promised to give the Select Committee full access to the agency's records.
The agency arranged for the Senate staff to work on the report not in the committee’s secure space, in the Hart Senate Office Building, but in a secret C.I.A. facility in northern Virginia, using a computer system that the C.I.A. provided.
Six Republicans on the committee voted in favor of the investigation, but by the fall of 2009 they had recused themselves. Democratic staff members worked alone at the C.I.A. site for three and a half years. In December, 2012, the committee approved the final report [...] and sent it to President Obama. The report concluded that the enhanced techniques were far more brutal than the agency had disclosed, and were an ineffective means of obtaining accurate information. The C.I.A. had justified them by enumerating terrorist plots that had been “thwarted.” The report examined twenty of these examples and found them “wrong in fundamental respects.”
By then, John Brennan had replaced Panetta as CIA director, and he not only disputed the report's findings, but falsely accused committee staffers of hacking CIA computers to get documents they shouldn't have. It got ugly, and ultimately, it turned out that the CIA had actually hacked into Senate computers to try to find out what information the Senate had.
Yeah, that IS insane.
Finally, in December 2014, the executive summary was published, after five and a half years of work, covering the use of torture in CIA "black sites" overseas, detailing the horrors perpetrated by the CIA in the name of fighting terror — and concluding that no, the use of torture hadn't protected Americans or prevented attacks. In remarks announcing the release of the report, Feinstein said,
There are those who will seize upon the report and say “see what Americans did,” and they will try to use it to justify evil actions or to incite more violence. We cannot prevent that. But history will judge us by our commitment to a just society governed by law and the willingness to face an ugly truth and say “never again.”
As for the claim that the CIA was simply applying its precise scientific knowledge of how to extract information from enemy combatants following the 9-11 attacks, for the safety of us all, Feinstein cited an email in the report from former CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, who wrote in 2005 to then-CIA Director Porter Goss,
“… we have found that the Agency over the decades has continued to get itself in messes related to interrogation programs for one overriding reason: we do not document and learn from our experience – each generation of officers is left to improvise anew, with problematic results for our officers as individuals and for our Agency.”
Making it up as you go along is no way to defend the USA, especially if in the process you throw away what the USA is supposed to be about. The report, Feinstein said, showed that the CIA's torture programs "are a stain on our values and on our history."
The release of this 500-page summary of our report cannot remove that stain, but it can and does say to our people, and the world, that America is big enough to admit when it’s wrong and confident enough to learn from its mistakes. Releasing this report is an important step to restore our values and show the world that we are in fact a just and lawful society.
Nearly a decade on, it would be nice to say that the torture report taught America its lesson. Possibly it did; although a minority of Americans did elect a man who regularly fantasized about how neat it would be if America would just torture its enemies — for the sake of torturing them, not even with the pretense of interrogating them — the intelligence agencies never went along with it, if only as a matter of utilitarianism, not idealism.
Read Moar!
If President Donald Trump Tortures You, That Means It's Not Illegal
John McCain Explains To Donald Trump In Very Small Words: Torture Is Bad
Trump's Killing Fantasies Escalating To Group Executions And Guillotines If He's President Again
Then again, Republicans now hate the memory of John McCain, who for all his awful politics, was at least a clear strong voice against torture. There's no shortage of Americans who see nothing wrong with being monstrous to the enemy, whoever it is at any given moment. And that torture freak Donald Trump is back and dreaming of mass executions and chopping heads, too.
In dragging the CIA torture program partly into the sunlight, Dianne Feinstein not only detailed that America in the age of Bush had done monstrous things, but also that it hadn't made us any safer. That's a lesson that really ought to sink in.
Finally, a quick moderator's note for comments on this story: Yes, there's reason to think that Sen. Feinstein is experiencing cognitive decline, as we've discussed previously. But we're not going to tolerate derisive comments about that. Period. Try empathy instead.
[New Yorker / Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence / Sen. Dianne Feinstein]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 a month so we can keep reminding you that all this crap happening now didn't just start with Trump.
Chinese Spy Balloons Are Bad. Republican Screeching Is Worse.
Sit your ass down, DJ. You're not going to shoot eleven miles into the air with your AR-15.
Unemployment is down to 3.4 percent, 517,000 jobs were created in January, and inflation seems finally to be easing. These are good stories for President Joe Biden, so naturally Republicans want to talk nonsense about a Chinese weather balloon. And the media is only too happy to oblige!
"Did it drop and disperse surveillance products powered by solar energy to allow unlimited surveillance," wondered Fox's Maria Bartiromo, whose singular dedication to being the dumbest working journalist at a major network remains unchallenged. Rep. James Comer, the new chair of House Oversight and someone who needs flashcards to be stupid, went even further: "My concern is that the federal government obviously doesn't know what's in that balloon. Is that bioweapons in that balloon? Did that balloon take off from Wuhan?"
The balloon is full of solar-powered bioweapons! Or maybe surveillance fentanyl! Why didn't Biden shoot it down over Topeka?!?!?!!!1!
It must be exhausting to be this moronic. And God knows Peepaw Pisspants needs a nap!
https://truthsocial.com/users/realDonaldTrump/stat...
Here on Planet Earth, none of this makes a lick of sense. Even if you discount the Chinese line that this is a simple weather balloon blown off course, the reality is that China has spy satellites and drones — and so do we! There is no way of knowing why China chose to float this thing over America on the eve of a planned visit between Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and President Xi, but the doomed dirigible caused major diplomatic embarrassment, and Blinken has now canceled his trip. If this was a ploy to make President Biden look weak, then it failed spectacularly everywhere but on Fox News.
There's also the inconvenient fact that China did the exact same thing multiple times during the Trump administration. So much for the boast that no one would never have dared encroach on American air space with that manly specimen of decaying blubber and petty grievance channel surfing in the Oval Office. Republicans have been reduced to shouting NUH UH and blaming Barack Obama, all the while counseling their patriotic followers to shoot pointlessly into the air while standing under it.
Reuters reports that the balloon looked to be deliberately hovering over sensitive military targets, something which they hadn't seen Chinese balloons do before. Similarly, the New York Times suggests that the advantage of balloons over satellites is their ability to "hover over a site far longer and [they] can pick up radio, cellular and other transmissions that cannot be detected from space," something the Biden administration anticipated and ordered the affected military installations to prepare for.
No one knows exactly what the balloon was doing, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if the Biden administration had taken it down over land and harmed one hair on the head of a goat grazing in East Asscrack the same Republicans cursing his lack of courage would be howling for impeachment based on his reckless endangerment of human life. According to Reuters, the military cleared the airspace above Billings, Montana, on Wednesday, but then decided not to risk shooting the thing down over land — something the Kurvy Kouch Brain Trust at Fox insists is a sign of dereliction of duty by General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As soon as the craft reached the Atlantic, it was hit by a Sidewider missile fired by an F-22 fighter jet dispatched from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. The debris field stretches some seven miles, most of it in shallow waters off the coast of South Carolina where we can recover the parts and possibly assess what it was doing.
Make no mistake, this is a serious incursion that raises questions that don't fit into a soundbite that can be replayed for partisan advantage. As the Times's David Sanger points out, China seems to have miscalculated badly, and then had no means to defuse the diplomatic crisis once unleashed. We've now got their balloon, and they've got egg on their faces. But there are no rational policy discussions to be had with a party reborn in the image of a spray-painted game show host obsessed with scoring points in an endless cycle of faux outrage.
This is no way to run a country. And yet ... what other choice do we have?
Click the widget to keep your Wonkette ad-free and feisty. And if you're ordering from Amazon, use this link, because reasons.