I was watching Ed the other day, where Ed was giving a Republican Senator his head to spread all sorts of lies, and as soon as she got on the screen, Joan Walsh set the record straight:
Transcript over the fold
SEN. JOHN BARRASSO ®, WYOMING: * * * my opinion, it really worked on preventative care. And you see - you see what we happen - what happened just now with this rationing of care, with this preventative task force. They‘re preventing services for women for mammograms. I mean, that‘s really a preview into what may happen with health care in America when you get the government making decisions, standing between a patient and their doctor. We see now where the American Cancer Society comes out to defend their position on when you should do mammograms.
But Washington, who says it knows best and published this in the annals of Internal Medicine, said no, don‘t do mammograms until age 50. Stop after age 75. You know what that‘s going to do? It‘s going to cost lives, and that‘s what‘s wrong with this whole plan.
[snip]
SCHULTZ: Joan Walsh, she‘s the editor in chief of Salon.com. She‘s with us. And Ernest Istook, former congressman and Distinguished Fellow of the Heritage Foundation. Good to have both of you with us tonight.
ERNEST ISTOOK, DISTINGUISHED FELLOW, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Thanks, Ed.
SCHULTZ: Joan, does this bill go far enough for progressives in this country? What do you think?
JOAN WALSH, EDITOR IN CHIEF, SALON.COM: You know, it probably doesn‘t, Ed. It‘s just the beginning of a process and there‘s going to be a lot of debate and they‘re going to merge the House and the Senate bills before they‘re through.
But I just have to reply to something that Senator Barrasso said. As a doctor, it‘s just shocking to me that he would be so ideological as to lie about - he‘s lying about that panel recommendation on mammograms. It is very controversial, Ed. I have friends on both sides of that issues - issue. I know doctors on both sides of that issue.
But here‘s one thing, Ed, they made that recommendation under the Bill Clinton administration. They made it again under the George Bush administration. For lots of different reasons, it‘s never been adopted. The American Cancer Society fights it. But it is not a political decision and it has nothing to do with the Democrats or President Obama‘s health care push.
So every time you hear that, Ed, you have to push back. This is what we‘ve sunk to as a country, and as a Republican Party that people would scare - they‘ve lost the death panel, they gave up on the death panels because they don‘t exist, and now they‘re scaring women that Obama wants to take away their - their mammograms. It‘s outrageous.
SCHULTZ: Ernest Istook, what about that?
ISTOOK: Well, I looked at some of the bill last night and I think at Section 224 of the bill, and some other sections too, actually give that very same government panel expanded power. Now, they - they will make reports to this new health czar, this Health Choices commissioner and also to the secretary of Health and Human Services on what should or should not be covered.
So this very panel that made the controversial decision is actually going to be put in an even more important role under the Senate bill.
SCHULTZ: Well, Ernest, insurance companies - insurance companies decide right now what should and should not be covered.
WALSH: Right. We already have.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: We already got that.
ISTOOK: Ed, you‘re right. But, you see, insurance companies are - are making those decisions, but you‘re saying the only decision maker ought to be the government. You know, that means whether it‘s right or whether it‘s wrong, there‘s only one decision, and it‘s the same decision for everyone.
SCHULTZ: But as a.
WALSH: Absolutely not true.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: As a tax paying American, I can do - I can do something - wait a minute. I can do something about the insurance companies. I can‘t.
WALSH: My mother.
SCHULTZ: Go.
WALSH: My mother died of breast cancer at 45. Let‘s get - let‘s get into it. I don‘t support this panel - this panel‘s decision, but they‘re not going to necessarily expand this panel‘s role. This is a panel that has been banging away at this.
ISTOOK: But in the bill it does expand their role.
WALSH: There are other panels in the bill. This is - this is not a done deal. This has been - this has been a controversial decision going back 15 years, and to say that it‘s coming up now because of this push is completely dishonest and playing on the fears.
ISTOOK: Actually.
SCHULTZ: All right. Joan, hold on - hold on Ernest.
ISTOOK: Yesterday.
SCHULTZ: Hold on, Ernest, I want to - I want to.
ISTOOK: . the White House is trying to have it both ways. The White House Communications director condemned the people who condemned the panel, and then the secretary of Health and Human Services condemned the panel. The White House is taking both sides of this issue.
SCHULTZ: All right, what about the abortion clause right now? I want to know what you think, Joan, about Senator Boxer‘s comments earlier. She thinks that they‘re going to get over this hurdle and it wouldn‘t be a problem and the language will be satisfactory to the progressive people of this country. What do you think?
WALSH: Well, it probably wouldn‘t be satisfactory to the progressive people, but it will probably get enough progressive votes. There will be a compromise.
You know, the caps amendment in the House always, always made sure to stick to the letter and - and the spirit of the Hyde amendment, preventing federal funds from being used. The Stupak amendment was just a - a bait and switch at the last minute that really will not stand. We will not have health insurance with a Stupak amendment.
They‘ve worked out a compromise. I‘m not crazy about it, but I - I think it will get progressive votes.
You're right Joan, it's completely outrageous, and I'm surprised that Ed himself didn't point it out. We can't just let these talking points slide, because a lot of people (myself included before watching that segment) didn't know that the board had been proposing the increased age for YEARS. When we don't point out stuff like that, we only make it more difficult to do what we need to do today. Especially when we've got people like Elisabeth Hasselbeck on The View espousing these views and being applauded for saying the government is trying to kill women.
I really believe Republicans are incapable of honest debate. There's probably a lot more we'd agree about in the bill (and in a more progressive bill) if everything wasn't so ideological and political. We send people to Washington to work together and get shit done. So thank you Joan for calling them out, and for reminding Ed that he's supposed to do the same!
Also, apparently former Bush DOJ attorneys support Holder's decision to try KSM in a Civilian Trial, even if they don't necessarily agree with it, they don't think it's the end of the world or our civilization:
A trial in Manhattan will bring enormous media attention and require unprecedented security. But it is unlikely to make New York a bigger target than it has been since February 1993, when Mohammed's nephew Ramzi Yousef attacked the World Trade Center. If al-Qaeda could carry out another attack in New York, it would -- a fact true a week ago and for a long time. Its inability to do so is a testament to our military, intelligence and law enforcement responses since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
[snip]
One reason commissions have not worked well is that changes in constitutional, international and military laws since they were last used, during World War II, have produced great uncertainty about the commissions' validity. This uncertainty has led to many legal challenges that will continue indefinitely -- hardly an ideal situation for the trial of the century.
By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder's critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including "shoe bomber" Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.
In terrorist trials over the past 15 years, federal prosecutors and judges have gained extensive experience protecting intelligence sources and methods, limiting a defendant's ability to raise irrelevant issues and tightly controlling the courtroom. Moussaoui's trial was challenging because his request for access to terrorists held at "black" sites had to be litigated. Difficulties also arose because Moussaoui acted as his own lawyer, and the judge labored to control him. But it is difficult to imagine a military commission of rudimentary fairness that would not allow a defendant a similar right to represent himself and speak out in court.
I can't post more because of Fair Use rules, but go read the whole thing, it's really great.
Jon Stewart had a great big on some of the whining that's going on, watch here:
Update [2009-11-20 18:23:33 by Muzikal203]: Transcript (I did it, so forgive any errors):
Jon@ 2:28: And finally, now that we’ve decided to try KSM in Manhattan, the last thing we don’t need to be thankful for is Thanksgiving Congressional Recess. Because with Congress out of session, these three Congressmen, two from Texas one from Arizona, will no longer be on the floor of the house to warn New Yorkers of the dire threat that Terrorism poses.
Rep. Shadegg: I believe that we are exposing the people of New York, the uh people involved in these courts and in their security all for no reason whatsoever.
Rep. McCaul: It’s only going to heighten the state of alertness in New York City.
Rep. Gohmert: I would rather be killed by a terrorist, than to have them see legislators running in fee because there’s some terrorist threat in the capital. Just take me out. (Eats snacks). We are creating self inflicted wounds.
Jon: (looks around) Did you just have a SNACK in your "kill me now, instead of trying the terrorists" apocalyptic vision? (Grabs bag of Honey Teddy Grahams) (in fake Southern Accent) This trial shall bring only doom and despair upon the people of New York (eats Teddy Graham). (Picks up juice box) Blood will reign down from the heavens abo—(drinks). A Teddy Graham anybody?
I may be off base here, but it sounds like the Congressmen are saying that we must protect the rule of law by not executing it. Or to put it another way "alright, have your trial by jury, but don’t say we didn’t warn ya!"
Shadegg: If I were a terrorist outside the U.S. and KSM was going on trial in NY, I’d say "why don’t I find the judges cousin, why don’t I find the bailiff’s sister, why don’t I find the jailer’s brother? And I’ll capture them and hold them for ransom until KSM is released.
Jon: Why don’t you shut the hell up? What are you doing?! Why are you telling them that. (in fake NY accent) Hey, uh, all I’m saying is you know what I would do if I were a terrorist, I’d get like 4 or 5 Good Humor trucks, you know because everybody loves ice cream. Then I’d drive them down to the court house, but instead of ice cream, I’d pack em full of crocodiles. Alright, here’s what I’d do: When the court takes a break, and the bailiff comes out for some dip’n’dots. It’ll be "sure I’ll get you some—" and BOOM. . . crocodiles! The terrorists win.
I can’t believe that the other Congress people have to sit and listen to this stuff.
Shadegg: I’d like to commend to the attention of the listening audience, the points that were made uh pointed out in today’s media. This is going to be a FIELD DAY for Al Quaeda. (pans out to empty chamber)
Jon: (put head in hand) So the listening audience huh? The listening audience? There’s nobody there, it’s just you and the other guy in a windowless chamber coming up with nightmare scenarios. Oh my God! You’re in a windowless room plotting terrorist acts while America sleeps! YOU’RE WHAT YOU’RE WARNING ABOUT!!