Paul Krugman is not in the mood for bipartisanship.

The Nobel laureate today declares Obama's stimulus package "somewhat disappointing," because it "just doesn't look adequate to the economy's need." Krugman raises the possibility that the Obama team's desire to please the other side is the culprit behind what Krugman sees as a stingy economic plan:

Press reports last month indicated that Obama aides were anxious to keep the final price tag on the plan below the politically sensitive trillion-dollar mark. There also have been suggestions that the plan's inclusion of large business tax cuts, which add to its cost but will do little for the economy, is an attempt to win Republican votes in Congress.

 

While Glen Greenwald, Digby and other liberal blogs condemn torture and analyze other important current issues on a daily basis, the self-described "DC gossip" blog Wonkette currently holds the lead with almost twice as many votes as TPM and way ahead of the others in the "best liberal blog" category of the 2008 Weblog awards.

His op-ed piece today in the Washington Post speaking his mind about the Gaza conflict is a violation of the rule that there's only one President at a time. His name is George W. Bush.

Enough mixed signals! I'm with Obama on this one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/AR2009010702645.html

Maureen Dowd is back from a five-week vacation, and in her first piece the New York Times columnist comes out swinging at the Clintons, accusing the couple of being “still bitter” at Kennedy for endorsing Obama, without explaining the reasons behind her assessment.

In contradiction to Dowd’s characterization, a New York Daily News report dated December 17 and written by three staff writers quotes a source saying that Hillary told her supporters to “stop trashing Caroline Kennedy”. Furthermore, the article adds:

The supporters who said anything critical were rebuked,” one source said.

Even a source close to Kennedy agreed: “the criticism of her is not coming from Hillary”.

Welcome back.

The appointment of a progressive, Leon Panetta, to the helm of the CIA, represents in my view the best chance we've had to discover the extent to which the CIA was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963.

Although the  Assassinations Records Review Board helped release during the 90's millions of records pertaining to the coup, many more key documents are being blocked by the agency. Indeed, The Huffington Post reported as recently as October, 2007 (via their blogger and ex-Washington Post writer Jefferson Morley) that the CIA was blocking the publication of records related to George Joannides, a top CIA agent whose secret anti-Castro cell had contacts with Oswald. The records remain sealed as I compose this entry:

Morley (October 22, 2007): In a July 2003 FOIA request, I asked for all records on Joannides' contacts with and responsibilities for the DRE in 1962-64, as well as records on his stint as liaison to the congressional investigation in 1978. In the course of the lawsuit, the CIA admitted the existence of 33 still-secret documents in Joannides' administrative file. The CIA refuses to release them in any form, claiming that the release of even a single word would harm national security or violate someone's privacy. Those records have been "denied in full."

The CIA denies any obligation to release JFK-related documents in the Joannides files. "The JFK Assassination Records Act has no applicability" to a FOIA request, according to a brief filed by the agency this summer.

These and other files (If not yet destroyed) which might potentially shed light on the coup should be unearthed. No ifs or buts.

 

Mainstream columnists and mainstream politicians of both parties have one thing in common with regard to the recent Gaza developments: they have either said nothing (in terms of opinion) or come out in support of Israel. Editor and Publisher, a journal focused on the study of newspaper content, described this media behavior during the first 8 days of Israeli offensive in a piece published Saturday (January 3rd) and updated Sunday and today:

The New York Times had produced exactly one editorial, not a single commentary by any of its columnists, and only two op-eds (one already published elsewhere). The editorial, several days ago, did argue against the wisdom of a ground invasion - - but even though that invasion had become ever more likely all week the paper did not return to this subject.

Amazingly, the paper has kept that silence going in Sunday's and even Monday's paper, with no editorial or columnist comment on the Israeli invasion -- beyond a hawkish pro-invasion contribution by William Kristol. It's as if the Times is waiting for the invasion to be over and adapt its position to the outocme.

The Washington Post did manage to work up an editorial for Sunday which, in the usual contortionist manner, found the invasion "justified" but also highly "risky."

More:

As in the past, U.S. media coverage and commentary has overwhelmingly backed the Israeli actions (as it did in the Lebanon war in 2006, which turned into a fiasco). CNN and MSNBC have provided some helpful balance, starting late Saturday, but on the Sunday morning talk shows Democratic leaders said little, or nothing, critical of Israel.

Commentary against the excessive use of force by Israel has been mostly relegated to liberal bloggers such as Glen Greenwald and others.

Let it be known that in addition to his regular column, Krugman has a blog, in which not one word has been said about this issue. The excuse that Krugman is an economist, not a foreign policy expert, is mitigated by the fact that he spoke against the Iraq invasion from the get-go and beyond.