UPDATED: No We Won't - Oh Wait, We Will

UPDATE 1: Link here to an interesting editorial on a better use for White House talent.

After throwing the equivalent of a four-year old's tantrum over the posturings of puffed-up opinion commentary on Fox, the White House has decided that it might be in its best interest to allow Administration officials to appear on Fox News shows after all. In the last posting, I discussed the increasingly partisan, and over-hyped coverage on all of the cable news shows (of course, both the left and the right have long concluded that media bias is rampant), and the increasingly competition between the various outlets.

What seems particularly ridiculous is the personal offense the White House seems to feel whenever Beck or Hannity goes off on a rant. I feel little sympathy for much of the sentiment behind those rants, but the President is supposed to be a little thicker-skinned than this. So what is Beck says something ludicrous - ignore it if possible, or rebut with facts. Don't scream, yell and cry for Momma. Like all modern politicians, Obama has made full use of the media when it suits his purposes, even 'permitting' ABC to broadcast, from the White House, a full-throated defense of his approach to health care reform. When the President of the United States engages in a particular attack on one media outlet, ignoring the bias of the very outlet on which those accusations are made (by proxy), he looks the fool.

The CBO Continues to Deep-Six Obama Proposals

From the failure of the current 'cap and trade' proposals to do much to either help the environment or limit cost over-runs, to the current health-reform proposals (with analysis sent by request to members of Congress here), to the long-term effects of various budget proposals, the CBO has continued to throw cold-water on Congressional and Administration claims that the stimulus, annual budget, and spending proposals will do much if anything to help the economy. Much of their analyses point to a further increase of both annual deficits as well as the national debt, and to an increase in costs. And yet, Congress and the Administration continue to hawk their proposals as benefiting the overall economy, decreasing the debt and deficit and improving the prospects of middle-America.

Now it seems that there is a serious debate within the Administration about the raising of taxes on the middle class. Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, both of whom were heavily involved in the current economic meltdown prior to entering the Administration, have floated the idea as a necessity to reduce the deficit. While President Obama certainly doesn't want to look like he's backing out on his version of the 'read my lips pledge,' there are only three options available to he and to the Congress: cut spending (not going to happen with all the continued spending proposals), allow the debt to balloon to the point where we create long-term stagflation (which will kill any possibility of a second term), or increase income in the form of taxes. Given the ambitions and preferences of both the Congressional leadership and the President, it's pretty clear that continued tax hikes for most income levels are in store. Some increases may be hidden (as in the cap and trade package), and some may be open (after all, taxes are our 'patriotic duty' according to VP Biden, who also has declared that the stimulus is a success), but they're going to happen. Another clue: 'Everyone must sacrifice' according to President Obama.

Hypocrisy at its Shining Best

There are times when Charles Krauthammer is at best supercilious and at worst self-absorbed, but his May 1 article, 'Pelosi: Utterly Contemptible' is the Krauthammer at his best. It's a hard-hitting look at the hypocrisy and double-dealing in Congress (particularly within the Speaker's office) over the 'torture memos' and push to investigate those involved.

Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."

Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 ... fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works. ...

... Today Pelosi protests "we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.

On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."

Krauthammer is dead on the money in this case. Rep. Pelosi is a perfect example of the CYA culture in Washington. The one where all principles are up for sale, even patriotism, and when the fact that they were sold cheap is exposed, blame someone else. I lean toward the argument, expressed in the opening paragraphs of the article, that there are unique exceptions that would permit torture for very specific goals. However, I can respect disagreement on this issue, and wouldn't condemn an opposing view. If one takes that opposing view however, it's important to ensure that one maintains it as a consistent principle. Pelosi sold out, pure and simple. She's been caught with her pants down, and now it's someone else's fault that she didn't understand future possibility versus present (apparently she skipped the lectures in school on verb tense). Krauthammer has the right of it here as well, holding Pelosi responsible for not doing everything she could to stop the CIA and the administration if she believed so strongly that these methods were absolutely and always wrong. Instead, she offered support and greater funding. She's not a liberal - she's simply a sellout.