RIP Michael Lupinacci. You will be missed by so many...

My brother Michael passed away last night after a year and a half battle with cancer. You often hear people say after a person dies that they have touched many lives. That could not be more true for my brother. He served the public for nearly his entire life. Volunteer rescue. Volunteer firefighter. Assistant Communications Manager for Allegheny County's emergency operations center. Police Officer. And, for the last two years, Police Chief of Lincoln Borough.

He often saw society at its worst, but also at its most vulnerable. And, he'd run into that burning building, or be the first to come to your aid in a dire medical emergency, or go out on a call for help not knowing if he'd make it back...

He even played a long-distance part in the rescue of two fellow officers that became the subject of the movie "World Trade Center" which I wrote about here seven years ago.

And of course, his family and friends could rely on him for anything.

Last December over 500 of them and his fellow first responders came out to an event to help raise money so he could go to Sloan-Kettering. Thank you for that!

Now upon hearing of his passing, so many are remembering all that he did. But they also are recounting his wicked and mischievous sense of humor and how he loved to laugh at the absurdities of life.

He's survived by his wife Carolyn, his son Michael and his daughter Melissa (who by the way, also runs into burning buildings) and his five siblings.

We love you Michael and we miss you already.

You were one of the good ones.

 

UPDATE: News story in the Trib today on my baby bro.

You want real response? Call P-E-D-U-T-O!

The Braintrust's Getting Desparate

Over this news:

For the first time in human history, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 400 parts per million (ppm). The arrival at this threshold represents a powerful symbol of the growing human influence on the Earth’s climate.

Manmade emissions of carbon dioxide have increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from around 270 to 280 ppm in the late 1700s to today’s record high level – a 43 percent increase. Measurements of CO2 trapped in air bubbles from ice cores in Antarctica indicate today’s levels are unsurpassed in at least 800,000 years.

Keep note of those years when you read how Marc Morano (the Tribune-Reviews editorial board's non-scientist, swiftboater go-to "expert" on all matters pseudo-scientific) tries to reassure us all that it's not that big of a deal.  For example they quote him with this:

From geology's long-view perspective, current CO2 levels are remarkably low.

Considering that "geologic time" tracks things in the millions, tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years, and remembering that the Earth (sorry young Earth creationists, but you're still wrong on this, no matter what your Bible tells you) is 4.5 billion years old, a mere 800,000 years really is a very short time - so it's not surprising that at some point in the Earth's past CO2 levels were higher at some point for some reason during that time.

Still doesn't disprove that we've been polluting the air and now the planet's warming up because of it.

800,000 years is a long time in human standards, though.  How long a time?

Take a look:

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.

Now go look at the bullet points the Braintrust wants to reassure you with.

As they're bereft of actual chronological context, they're more or less beside the point.  And that's hardly reassuring.

Um, Yea...

From Talkingpointmemo:

Generally, once partisan, tendentious sources leak information that turns out to be wrong, nothing’s ever done about it. That’s for many reasons, some good or somewhat understandable, mostly bad. But on CBS Evening News tonight, Major Garrett did something I don’t feel like I’ve seen in a really long time or maybe ever on a network news cast. He basically said straight out: Republicans told us these were the quotes, that wasn’t true.

And then Josh Marshall has a rough transcript of what Major Garrett said:

Republicans have claimed that the State Department under Hillary Clinton was trying to protect itself from criticism. The White House released the real e-mails late yesterday and here’s what we found when we compared them to the quotes that had been provided by Republicans. One e-mail was written by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes. On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes. “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.” But it turns out, in the actual e-mail Rhodes did not mention the State Department. It read “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.” Republicans also provided what they said was a quote from an e-mail written by State Department Spokesman Victoria Nuland. The Republican version notes Nuland discussing: “The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda’s presence and activities of al-Qaeda.” The actual e-mail from Nuland says: the “…penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings…” The C.I.A. agreed with the concerns raised by the State Department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the C.I.A.’s original version, eliminating references to al-Qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. There is no evidence, Scott, the White House orchestrated these changes.

If you're counting, that's two huge misrepresentations by the Republicans - but the final sentence is the important one: There is no evidence that the White House orchestrated the changes.

Selective IRS Outrage

Unsurprisingly, from my good friends on the Tribune-Review editorial board:

The New York Times played the first-day story of the IRS harassing conservative groups at the bottom of page 10. Had the IRS done the same to liberal groups, The Times would have put out an extra edition.

Actually, this (IRS targeting/harrassing) has happened before - on the other side of the political aisle, of course.

And with nary a peep from the Scaife's Braintrust, of course.

But first some context from Salon.com:

While few are defending the Internal Revenue Service for targeting some 300 conservative groups, there are two critical pieces of context missing from the conventional wisdom on the “scandal.” First, at least from what we know so far, the groups were not targeted in a political vendetta — but rather were executing a makeshift enforcement test (an ugly one, mind you) for IRS employees tasked with separating political groups not allowed to claim tax-exempt status, from bona fide social welfare organizations. Employees are given almost zero official guidance on how to do that, so they went after Tea Party groups because those seemed like they might be political. Keep in mind, the commissioner of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee.

And that link leads us to this:

In reality, campaign finance experts say, the IRS’ impropriety in targeting Tea Party groups is proof positive of the need for new regulations, as the whole problem started because employees charged with weeding out camouflaged political groups from actual social welfare organizations had no official definition to work off of. After Citizens United and attendant decisions eliminated the restrictions on how much money these groups could spend, their numbers doubled, mainly on the right as conservatives saw an opportunity to push unlimited secret money into elections. Some of these groups were blatantly political, even though they told the IRS they’d stay out of politics.

As Ezra Klein explains, with no formal test on what makes a political group, IRS employees went where the action was and focused on Tea Party groups. That approach was wrong and discriminatory, but the only way to fix it will be with better regulations and clearer demarcations of what makes a group political.

So the current situation was triggered by Citizen's United (and gee, what a great decision that's turned out to be, huh??) but the question arises: Has the IRS ever targeted any left leaning organization for similar harassment?  The Braintrust seems to think that it hasn't and that even if it had, the NYTimes would have "put out a new edition" to let everyone know.

 From Salon:

The well-known church, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, became a bit of a cause célèbre on the left after the IRS threatened to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election. “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine,’” rector George Regas said from the dais.

The church, which said progressive activism was in its “DNA,” hired a powerful Washington lawyer and enlisted the help of Schiff, who met with the commissioner of the IRS twice and called for a Government Accountability Office investigation, saying the IRS audit violated the First Amendment and was unduly targeting a political opponent of the Bush administration. “My client is very concerned that the close coordination undertaken by the IRS allowed partisan political concerns to direct the course of the All Saints examination,” church attorney Marcus Owens, who is widely considered one of the country’s leading experts on this area of the law, said at the time. In 2007, the IRS closed the case, decreeing that the church violated rules preventing political intervention, but it did not revoke its nonprofit status.

And while All Saints came under the gun, conservative churches across the country were helping to mobilize voters for Bush with little oversight. In 2006, citing the precedent of All Saints, “a group of religious leaders accused the Internal Revenue Service yesterday of playing politics by ignoring its complaint that two large churches in Ohio are engaging in what it says are political activities, in violation of the tax code,” the New York Times reported at the time. The churches essentially campaigned for a Republican gubernatorial candidate, they alleged, and even flew him on one of their planes.

Where was the outrage from Scaife's Braintrust then?

Go to triblive.com and search for "All Saints Episcopal Church Pasadena" and you'll find two (2) articles. One from the AP discussing the National Cathedral performing "same sex weddings" and the other a straight forward news piece by David Brown that starts with this:

As nonprofit groups have increased their political activity, the Internal Revenue Service has stepped up efforts cautioning tax-exempt organizations on how to avoid trouble.

Which, shred of it's nasty political overtones, is exactly how the IRS got into trouble with those Tea Party groups in the first place.

All with no braintrust editorials decrying the scandal of it all.

Surprising, isn't it?

David Conrad Disagrees With The P-G's Wagner Endorsement

While we usually don't have "guest bloggers" here at 2PJ, when a friend of the blog emails in (unsolicited, by the way) such a powerful commentary, the idea of just leaving it sit in my in-box unread by anyone else just doesn't seem right.

Ladies and Gentlemen, David Conrad:

The Post Gazette endorsed Jack Wagner for two reasons that I want to refute:

1. Bill Peduto's too compromised by his position on City Council. In the paper's eyes, Council is irredeemable and Bill's got too many enemies, fatwas, and blood feuds running there to work with them if he becomes Mayor.
2. Bill is, on the other hand, too cosy with our county executive Rich Fitzgerald. The PG doesn't want that kind of concentrated power running Allegheny county. Otherwise the PG calls Peduto hardworking, progressive, inspired, uncorrupted, and an all around decent guy who's partnered with them - the PG itself - to promote particular projects in Pittsburgh.

Reminds me of the joke about the producer and the scriptwriter, "We love this, we're behind you, we believe in you and we want to be a part of this. So we're gonna pass."

This schizophrenia in Pittsburgh's paper of note comes from the cold war between its owners, the Block family, and its managing editors. In other words between the money and the people on the ground. But more on that later.

POINT 1

Bill's been swimming with Council's sharks for more than a decade and there hasn't been a single corruption charge against him. If anything his time on Council has made him MORE progressive. He's turned away from the mad infighting to national and international sources of urban growth, studied them and tried to bring pieces of their programs to Pgh. He's not fighting for kickback dollars on building projects, or trying to settle Ward scores. He's not looking ahead to a seat on the board of Duquesne Light.

More importantly, Murphy's and Ravenstahl's administrations each in their own way demonstrated that a Mayor doesn't need to be beholden to or lovey dovey with Council to get stuff done. In fact he can ignore them half the time. If he's a driven powerhouse of a man like Murphy or the late Dick Caligiuri he can do amazing things, if he's a morally compromised teenager like Luke R he can ....well blacken the name of an entire political organization and hopefully go to jail.

What I'm saying is that there's no absolute power to corrupt anyone absolutely in any part of Pgh city government. The measure of the man determines how he'll use it. I think Bill's shown himself to be finely drawn. You can't buy him. He's a political creature. That's what he wants, the power, the work, not the payoff which could follow.

Jack Wagner's a machine politician. He has connections in Harrisburg that could smooth certain processes between our city and the capital but...how smooth do we want things between Corbett's Harrisburg and City Hall? Do you want drilling concessions at the city border which, if you've forgotten is, going roughly clockwise - Swissvale, just East of Banksville and North of Washington's landing?

Where Jack's been doing his work is probably more unsavory and just as dirty as Bill's backyard. Which is our backyard. I'd rather have someone who knows it and the bullies within that need a lesson.

Plain and simple, Luke's campaign money went to Jack. He accepted it. More importantly, the Dem powers that be - and if you think they don't exist I'm not a conspiracy theorist and you're a dreamer - they said, Yes Luke you can move that money to back Jack. Ipso facto Jack's their new man. Luke was their old one. Jack will have to owe them. Anyone humming a Who tune?

POINT 2

The plain fact of the matter is Pittsburgh will never be a great city...let me rephrase that...it will never have the political intelligence and might commensurate to its greatness until the day comes when the city IS the county. You've all read the numbers down the decades how we've gone from 600,000 to what is it now 307, 488? (Although I think we've just started to add a few, if only in Lawrenceville.)  Point is, Pittsburgh isn't a city. It's a city-state. It's a heartland of sorts to the Steeler nation and it stretches spiritually almost to the Ohio and West Virginia borders, up 79 to the fields of Meadville and as far East on the turnpike till DVE dies.

Okay maybe I'm exaggerating.

But Pittsburgh as a force and as a physical entity should shed its political borders. Philadelphia did, Buffalo did, Indianapolis has, Portland will...melt the city into the county, save all that municipal waste the suburbs complain about - while they live off the shoulder of the city like pilot fish - and at the same become a regional power to rival Philly in size.

What makes Pittsburgh truly "small", what is making it smaller is its small ambitions and its petty crimes. We have a political culture that fights over what it perceives are limited resources. We horde power and money in line offices that shouldn't exist, we hold fast to doctrines both laborite and managerial which sound respectively proud and real politic but eventually lead to paralysis, we sell out for payoffs that wouldn't pay off the balance of a car.

Redefine the pie. Get out of the engine room, as my dad used to say, and realize there's a ship to sail. Insert your own metaphor.

On a practical level, I hope the Mayor and the County Exec DO work hand in hand. I hope they get along like David Lawrence and (an elected) Richard Mellon, or Dick Caliguiri and Henry Hillman (or Elsie). We NEED to move as a body that's at least county wide and these guys are our chance to do it. They're not, neither of them and even their enemies couldn't pin it on them, they're not crooks. They're decent men who've arrived at just the right time.

Because in 5 years Pittsburgh's going to blow up on the national scene. We're going to have even more powerful health care, university and resource based industries, we're going to alter the map on urban farming and urban redevelopment. We're going to be a culinary, printmaking, bookmaking, beer making, and town making model for the entire country. You're gonna be flying to Portland Oregon to drink boutique coffee a decade late or Austin Texas to see SouthXSouthwest and you're gonna take out the airline magazine of your choice and there's gonna be an article about Pittsburgh, the phoenix from the industrial flameout, the emerald city risen from the brownfields, the gem of the Appalachians  that held fast against fracking (okay Brian, maybe The Paris..), and you're going to laugh. And hopefully turn around. Or have your head turned around when you get back and arrive where we first started and know the place for the first time.

And if we don't have the political vision to run alongside that urban assault, to assist and guide it, to check and delay it, we're going to be a war zone. Libertarians in the Cranberrys of their minds vs the radicals of Greater Homestead. We'll fracture even more and fight over smaller and smaller pieces of Pittsburgh's pie while the foundations despair and the drilling, banking and insurance companies chuckle.

Don't let it happen. You vote for Jack Wagner you vote for the past. Which needs to stop happening in Pittsburgh over and over again.

Listen to the PG's editors writing BETWEEN the lines of the editorial their owner demanded. Listen to the backlash.

Pick a good man not a party.

Latest Jack Wagner Ad

There's a new Jack Wagner ad out (you can see it here) that tries to undercut Bill Peduto's support among the younger electorate.

The ad is narrated by Wagner's daughter Sara and begins like this:

I’m Sara Wagner. My dad’s Jack Wagner and he’s running for Mayor. He knows what’s important to young people like me. He’s evolved a lot on social issues and I’m really proud of him.

However, the ad itself never says anything about how he's "evolved" on social issues.  I am guessing the campaign is hoping the electorate (READ: the young-uns already leaning towards Peduto) will just fill in the blanks.

So what does that "evolution" look like?

Chris Potter points out that:

As we've noted here previously, on LGBT issues especially, Wagner has come a long way since his city council days. And at debates, he routinely makes a point of emphasizing the importance of sensitivity to the "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community." (I don't think I've ever heard him use the acronym, now that I think of it.)

It's a cute spot, ending with a self-consciously dorky father-daughter fist-bump. But I can't help but feel it speaks to a certain unease about younger voters within Wagnerland: Polls consistently show Wagner lagging with that portion of the electorate.

That link on "previously" takes you to this piece by Lauren Daley where she writes:

Wagner's position on LGBT equality has evolved over the course of his political career. As a city councilor, he opposed a 1990 ordinance to include gays and lesbians in the city's anti-discrimination law. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that while Wagner acknowledged "incidents" of discrimination, "I don't believe that [Pittsburghers] discriminate in any systematic manner against homosexuals."

But during a 10-year stint in the state Senate, Wagner championed numerous pro-LGBT bills, including measures to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and to punish attacks on gays and lesbians as hate crimes. In this year's mayoral race, he told the Steel City Stonewall Democrats that he backed "full equality under the law for members of the LGBT community," including "the right to marry."

Which of course is a good thing - it should be noted, however, that that same Daley piece points out that even though Wagner backed marriage equality, the Stonewall Democrats endorsed Bill Peduto anyway.

Then there's this is an odd bit of social issues dissonance.  While Daley writes:

During his failed 2010 gubernatorial campaign, some anti-choice groups touted Wagner as an ally, but while Wagner described himself as a "pro-life Democrat," he also said he "support[ed] the current state law" — which permits abortion. In any case, Wagner's campaign told City Paper that he pledged to "enforce [clinic-access] laws appropriately."

LifePAC (which touts itself as "oldest pro-life PAC in southwestern Pennsylvania") writes that:

There can be no legitimate diversity of opinion with regard to abortion and euthanasia. The truth is that human rights begin when human lives begin.

As a member of the Catholic Church we cannot support candidates or legislation that sustains keeping abortion legal. We cannot serve two masters. We must eliminate from consideration candidates who endorse policies that cannot be reconciled with moral norms that are held by all Christians.

And LifePAC has endorsed Jack Wagner. 

On the one hand Wagner couldn't possibly have any control over who endorses him but on the other, as Molly Ivins once wrote, "You got to dance with them that brung you."

So while Wagner's evolved on some LGBT issues (though not enough to warrant an endorsement by the Stonewall Democrats) he's still anti-abortion (or pro-life or anti-choice - you pick the label).

We report, you decide.

More Peduto Swiftboating From Luke Ravenstahl

As disappointing and yet unsurprising as this is, Jack Wagner's de facto political ally, Luke Ravenstahl is at it again with another Swiftboat ad targeting Bill Peduto.

You remember the last one, right?  Bought and paid for by Ravenstahl's "Committee for a Better Pittsburgh" and produced by every Republican's favorite Swiftboating firm, SRCP Media.

From McNulty at the P-G, we learn that the ad:

...containing a hodge-podge of opposition material on the Democratic contender in the May 21 primary. FCC records show he'll be on air through primary day next week.

The FCC link confirms that this ad is also produced by SRCP Media.

I wonder how many of the City's democrats know that at least part of the cash they shoveled into Luke's campaign coffers has since been reshoveled into the PR firm that smeared John Kerry in 2004?

But I digress.  Back to the Luke's swiftboating.

The last charge of the ad has this text:

And Peduto supported raising seniors property taxes but using others people's money, including tax dollars to take exotic trips.

Ominously intoned over photos of concerned seniors while the showing us these dates as "evidence" to support that assertion:

• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 12/18/03
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 6/5/08

But this being a swiftboat ad, what can we expect about the "facts" underlying the smear?   You won't be disappointed to learn the unsurprising relationship between what the ad says the P-G said and what the P-G actually said.

I want to take a look at that "exotic trip" Peduto took, here's what Rich Lord actually wrote in the piece SRCP is using to swiftboat Peduto:

Mr. Peduto's travels start with a trip Monday to Harvard University for a national conference on the use of pension funds to revitalize neighborhoods. He said the city will pay about $600 for airfare and one night in a hotel -- the only part of his travel plans he expects taxpayers to cover.

Shortly after that, he'll take an 11-day trip to Turkey, courtesy of the Pittsburgh Dialogue Foundation, which fosters communication between cultures. That trip, which will take him from urban Istanbul to the cave warrens of Cappadocia, is about "tolerance and understanding," he said. "We'll be studying the cultural interaction between Christians, Muslims and Jews in five cities." [Emphasis added.]

A paragraph later Lord writes:

Mr. Peduto got a letter from the city's Ethics Hearing Board approving the trip, noting that the foundation has no business dealings with the city.

So that's it?  $600 for a trip to Hah-Vahd, a trip OK-ed by the Ethics Hearing Board?

See how that works?  This is the swiftboating that Ravenstahl's paying for.

Don't fall for it.

Peduto Momentum!

It happens every now and then - the OPJ and I find ourselves writing on the same topic.  Today it's Peduto's 7 point lead in the polls.

I'd like to add, however, that this is a change in some recent polling data.

Some chronology:

• March 1 - Mayor Luke drops out of the race
• March 7 - Keystone Analytics says the race is "up for grabs" with things more or less tied between Peduto and Lamb
• March 8 - Jack Wagner enters the race
• April 1 - Lamb drops out of the race
• April 4 - Keystone Analytics has Wagner up by 7 points
• April 29 - Keystone Analytics has Peduto up by 2 (though that's within the margin of error)

And now that leads us to the current 7 point lead for Peduto.

As they say, context is everything.  Imagine a race where one candidate is consistently ahead by double digits only to stumble a week or so before the election down to a 7 point lead.  You could say that the other candidate might be surging - that the momentum is moving in that candidate's direction.

But in this case we have something of the opposite - only 6 weeks or so ago Wagner was up by 7 and now it's Peduto's 7 point lead.

If there's momentum to be discussed, it's in Peduto's direction.

*** Obligatory Disclaimer: As everyone should know by now, Maria's been working part-time for People For Peduto since 2010. I, however, am unattached to any campaign.***

New Poll Shows Bill Peduto Up By 7 Points!

Via Keystone Analytics:

Lemoyne, PA (May 13, 2013) – In the race for Pittsburgh’s Mayor, Bill Peduto has increased his lead over former Auditor General Jack Wagner from two points on April 22nd to seven points late last week, according to a poll released by Keystone Analytics®. 

Peduto leads with 39 percent of likely voters saying they’ll vote for him while 32 percent say they’ll vote for Wagner. This lead, which is outside the margin of error of +/-4.9, indicates a surging Peduto but with the primary next week, 18 percent of voters are still unsure who they will vote for.

Want to make sure Bill stays on top and sweeps up this city? Hit the Get Out The Vote/Donate Button at www.billpeduto.com.

 

*** Obligatory Disclaimer: As everyone should know by now, I've been working part-time for People For Peduto since 2010

Fact-Checking Ruth Ann...And Her Tweets

In what I suppose is supposed to be a humorous satire on our twitter-infested political conversation, my friend and P-G columnist Ruth Ann Dailey makes a few, shall we say, mistakes of a factual nature.

Take a look:

The Benghazi story broke out of its Fox News ghetto last week as mainstream media biggies decided, months after it was fairly obvious, that the Obama administration had lied -- lied! -- about the tragic event.

Newly released emails show that White House and State Department officials extensively edited the "talking points" (TPs) provided to Congress and to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, insisting on removing from the CIA's original memo any reference to al-Qaida, its affiliates and previous attacks on "foreign interests" in Benghazi. Apparently, renewed terrorist attacks might not have gone over very well during the presidential campaign.

But, as Tommy Vietor, a former National Security Council spokesman, tweeted Friday: "The #Benghazi TPs were written at request of the House intel committee Rs so they could go on TV. Cong forced admin to do them now attack."

You follow? "By requesting information on the murders of four Americans, Republicans ("Rs") forced us to invent things to cover our political backsides! Then these snakes object to our lies!"

Let's start at Ruth Ann's first paragraph.  In this column, as you can see, she's talking about those talking points and how the White House "lied" with them.

But we can look back as far as late November, 2012 to see that this is simply untrue:

CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes. [Emphasis added.]

There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.

Republicans have accused her of making misleading statements by referring to the assault as a "spontaneous" demonstration by extremists. Some have suggested she used the terminology she did for political reasons.

And about those changes - specifically about the removal of any reference to any specific terror organizations - we can turn to the reporting of a few days earlier:

David H. Petreus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, told lawmakers on Friday that classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but that the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups.

Mr. Petraeus, who resigned last week after admitting to an extramarital affair, said the names of groups suspected in the attack — including Al Qaeda’s franchise in North Africa and a local Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah — were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them, lawmakers said.

A few paragraphs later:

The talking points initially drafted by the C.I.A. attributed the attack to fighters with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the organization’s North Africa franchise, and Ansar al-Shariah, a Libyan group, some of whose members have Al Qaeda ties.

Mr. Petraeus and other top C.I.A. officials signed off on the draft and then circulated it to other intelligence agencies, as well as the State Department and National Security Council.

At some point in the process — Mr. Petraeus told lawmakers he was not sure where — objections were raised to naming the groups, and the less specific word “extremists” was substituted.

But why?

Some intelligence analysts worried, for instance, that identifying the groups could reveal that American spy services were eavesdropping on the militants — a fact most insurgents are already aware of. Justice Department lawyers expressed concern about jeopardizing the F.B.I.’s criminal inquiry in the attacks. Other officials voiced concern that making the names public, at least right away, would create a circular reporting loop and hamper efforts to trail the militants.

Again this is all from last November.  So Ruth Ann, tell me again about the lies?

Especially in light of this 2008 report from CNN:

President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

For instance, the Center for Public Integrity wrote:

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

But as early as March 2002, there was uncertainty within the intelligence community regarding the sale of uranium to Iraq. That month, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research published an intelligence assessment titled, "Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely." In July 2002, the Energy Department concluded that there was "no information indicating that any of the uranium shipments arrived in Iraq" and suggested that the "amount of uranium specified far exceeds what Iraq would need even for a robust nuclear weapons program." In August 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency made no mention of the Iraq-Niger connection in a paper on Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Just two weeks before the president's speech, an analyst with the Bureau of Intelligence and Research had sent an e-mail to several other analysts describing why he believed "the uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax." And in 2006 the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded: "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are 'highly dubious.'"

I include this lie because back then, Ruth Ann wrote about how in "political theatre" "the truth rarely matters." Specifically about the unveiling of Valerie Plame:

It didn't matter that her husband Joe Wilson's investigation and subsequent New York Times editorial had actually bolstered the claim of British and Italian intelligence that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium in Niger.

But we already know that that claim was "highly dubious" and that Joe Wilson's investigation did not "bolster" that claim anyway:

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq -- and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

You were saying, Ruth Ann?

Um...Irony? I'm Not Sure

Take a look at this Sunday Pop found on the pages of the Richard Mellon Scaife-owned Tribune-Review:

The speaker of the California Assembly says he's “deeply concerned about media outlets being purchased to further a political agenda.” John Perez is referring to speculation that billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, economic conservatives and social libertarians, are considering buying the Los Angeles Times, among other newspapers. Never mind that the L.A. Times has been furthering the far-left political agenda for decades. [Bolding in original]

Never mentioned: The Tribune-Review is also owned by another billionaire who's also an economic conservative/social libertarian who's also using his ownership of some other media outlets to further a political agenda.

Huh.  You think someone would notice a pattern.

What A Difference 82 Years, 11 Months and 6 Days (or so) Makes

How differently public nudity is described these days!

In today's P-G the She-Pope is described as:

...wearing a pope costume, but had no clothing below her waist, and on her pubic area was the shape of a cross.

On May 6, 1930, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported:

County detectives raided the barge Manitou at the foot of Wood Street last night, which for months has been the scene of shows in which the costuming of the chorus hasn't been any problem to the promoters because there aren't any costumes.

And more specifically:

The entertainment had scarcely gotten under way when it was abruptly terminated by the arrival of the county sleuths and deputy sheriffs.  Three girls had enthralled the customers with a dance and one reel of motion pictures had been shown when the detectives arrived in the middle of the second film.  In the matter of costume the girls found no difficulty at all unless one would say that shoes and stockings constituted an adequate wardrobe.

And those "motion pictures"?  The P-G goes this far to call them:

Reels of films which usually are distributed by underground channels...

Nude dancing and porn?  On a barge on the Mon??

Duh Burgh must've been a wild place 82 years, 11 months and 6 (or so) days ago.

The Catholic Sharia of Pittsburgh

As reported yesterday:

Carnegie Mellon University police on Friday filed charges of indecent exposure against two art students accused of public nudity during a campus parade sponsored by the College of Fine Arts.

One of the two would be the she-pope. The other was some guy who dressed as an astronaut and then disrobed (down to his shoes and nothing more) while standing on top of a float.

You'll note that Bishop Zubik had no problem with the non-female, non-papal public nakedness.

That being said, take a look at this piece from Michael McGough of the LA Times:

In the post-9/11 culture wars over Islamic fundamentalism, American conservatives — properly — have condemned attempts in Muslim countries to punish blasphemy or insults to the prophet Muhammad. It will be interesting to see if they are similarly outraged over what has happened to an art student at Carnegie Mellon University who insulted the pope.

Granted there were no death threats, no threats of violence from the Bishop to defend his faith - but as McGough points out:

But it’s hard to believe that the university would have pursued the matter if there hadn’t been a complaint by Bishop David A. Zubik, who said that the display was “offensive to me and the church that I represent.”

Considering the Bishop was silent about the naked astronaut, it was all about the religious insult.

And in a free society, that's just not good enough to warrant punishment.  Sorry, Dave.

McGough quotes Texas v Johnson and I can't think of a better message to send Bishop David Zubik and the church he's looking to defend:

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

Especially since he thinks that:

...freedom of speech and freedom of expression do not constitute a freedom to dismiss or disrespect the beauty of anyone's race, the sacredness of anyone's religious belief or the uniqueness of anyone's nationality.

Wrong again, Dave.