AMERICA - A Duty of Office, the President of the United States

"From Oval Office to Disaster Site, Presidents Offer Compassion After Catastrophe" PBS Newshour 5/27/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In recent months, President Barack Obama has comforted Newtown families, memorialized Boston bombing victims and toured Oklahoma tornado destruction.  Presidential historian Michael Beschloss and Alexis Simendinger of Real Clear Politics analyze with Gwen Ifill the role of presidents during times of national distress and tragedy.

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  Now a look at the time-honored, but seemingly more frequent role of president as consoler in chief.

FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH:  America today is on bended knee in prayer for the people whose lives were lost here.

GWEN IFILL:  They are the increasingly familiar moments of searing loss, when presidents give voice to the nation's grief.

FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH:  I can hear you.  The rest of the world hears you.  And the people ...

And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.

GWEN IFILL:  Three days after 9/11, President George W. Bush stood on the rubble at Ground Zero in New York.  Six years earlier, in April 1995, President Clinton comforted mourners in Oklahoma City after 186 people died in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON:  We pledge to do all we can to help you heal the injured, to rebuild this city, and to bring to justice those who did this evil.

GWEN IFILL:  The presidents act as stand-ins for a nation's anguish.  In Jan. 1986, hours after the destruction of space shuttle Challenger, it fell to President Reagan to remember the seven astronauts killed that day.

FORMER PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN:  We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye, and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to such the face of God.

GWEN IFILL:  And five days after President Kennedy was assassinated in Nov. 1963, the newly elevated President Lyndon Johnson went before a shaken Congress and country.

FORMER PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON:  No words are strong enough to express our determination to continue the forward thrust of America that he began.

GWEN IFILL:  Yesterday, President Obama returned to the task, traveling to Moore, Okla., where 24 people died a week ago in a massive tornado.

OPINION - Attempting to Rehabilitate a Failed President

"How not to rehabilitate a failed president" by Steve Benen, Maddow Blog 4/24/2013

A confluence of events appears to have created a curious new talking point on the right.  With former President George W. Bush's library set to open, and last week's Boston Marathon bombing still very much on the public's mind, Republican pundits see value in trying to tie the two together in the hopes of improving Bush's reputation.

The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin, for example, published this gem yesterday:

"Unlike Obama's tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11."

A few hours later on Fox News, Eric Bolling echoed the sentiment.

"I will tell one thing, from you 9/12/01 until the time President Obama raised his right hand January of '09, the man kept us safe.  And there -- you certainly can't say that since President Obama has taken the oath of office."

When it comes to Bolling, I should note that this is an improvement from his previous stance.  Two years ago, he suggested on the air that he didn't recall 9/11 at all:  "America was certainly safe between 2000 and 2008.  I don't remember any terrorist attacks on American soil during that period of time."

I should also note that neither Rubin nor Bolling seemed to be kidding.  Their comments weren't satirical or jokes intended to make Republicans appear silly.

As for the substance, there are three main angles to keep in mind.  The first is the bizarre assertion that President Obama somehow deserves the blame for the bomb that killed three people in Boston last week, because he didn't "keep up safe."  The argument reflects a child-like understanding of national security and is absurd on its face.

Second, though the right likes to pretend otherwise, there were terrorist attacks during Bush/Cheney's tenure -- after 9/11 -- that shouldn't be ignored.  Indeed, it's a little tiresome to hear Republicans argue in effect, "Other than the deadly anthrax attacks, the attack against El Al ticket counter at LAX, the terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush's inability to capture those responsible for 9/11, waging an unnecessary war that inspired more terrorists, and the success terrorists had in exploiting Bush's international unpopularity, the former president's record on counter-terrorism was awesome."

And finally, I'm not sure Republican pundits have fully thought through the wisdom of the "other than 9/11" argument.

Bush received an intelligence briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, at which he was handed a memo with an important headline:  "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

Bush, however, was on a month-long vacation at the time.  He heard the briefer out and replied, "All right.  You've covered your ass, now."  A month later, al Qaeda killed 3,000 people.

For Rubin and Bolling, the response is, in effect, "Yeah, but other than that, he kept us safe."  The problem, of course, is that's roughly the equivalent of saying other than that iceberg, the Titanic had a pleasant voyage.  Other than that one time, Pompeii didn't have to worry about the nearby volcano.  Other than Booth, Lincoln enjoyed his evening at Ford's Theater.

It is, in other words, a little more difficult to airbrush catastrophic events from history.

I can appreciate the zeal with which Republican pundits want to rehabilitate Bush's poor standing, but they'll have to do better than this.

There is a list Terrorism in the United States that includes 2000-2009 (24), which includes 9/11/2001 and other events (18) that occurred during our 'Great Protector' G.W. Bush's reign.

POLITICS - View of the Presidents Club

"The Decorum, Skullduggery and Rivalries of the Presidents Club" PBS Newshour 5/31/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: Time magazine editors Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy explore how current and former American presidents interact with one another in their new book, "The Presidents Club: Inside the World's Most Exclusive Fraternity." The authors spoke with Gwen Ifill about cross-party mentoring and the infighting that can occur.

RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): .... Three of the five members of the presidents club gathered at the White House today, as former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura returned for the unveiling of their official portraits.

Mr. Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, was on hand, as the current White House occupant, President Barack Obama, thanked his predecessor for his service.

OPINION - End of Iraq War

"The end to a long and needless war" by Bill Press, The Hill 12/14/2011

History was made at the White House on Monday, Dec. 12.

Standing side by side in the South Court Auditorium of the Old Executive Office Building, President Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki proclaimed the end of the war in Iraq.

Only 6,000 American combat troops remain in Iraq, down from a peak of 170,000. Those remaining 6,000 will be out before Dec. 31. And the long, bloody, unnecessary war will be over at last.

Over a million American soldiers served in Iraq over the last eight years. Some 4,500 of them never came home. And the war cost American taxpayers over $1 trillion.

President Obama insisted that our troops can come back from Iraq “with their heads held high” for a job well done. Indeed, they can. But we citizens can still ask the all-important question: Was it worth it?

Absolutely not. Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. Iraq harbored no al Qaeda terrorists. And Iraq was not a threat to the United States. There were no nukes, no weapons of mass destruction.

The war in Iraq was George Bush’s war of choice. It was a dumb war. An unnecessary war. An unjust, and maybe illegal, war. Thank God it’s over. But we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place.

Amen

ECONOMY - Bush Tax Cuts, Another View

"Former Labor Secretary Reich: Bush-Era Tax Cuts 'Hurt Quite a Lot'"
PBS Newshour 9/29/2010

POLITICS - Woodward Book on Obama Administration

"White House doesn't dispute Woodward book's portrayal of Obama" by Anne E. Kornblut, Washington Post 9/22/2010

Excerpt

With juicy nuggets of the new Bob Woodward book on President Obama starting to emerge, the official White House reaction so far is: It's just fine.

Many of Obama's senior advisers have already obtained and read the book, "Obama's Wars," and are satisfied with the image it conveys of the president, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

"The President comes across in the [Afghanistan] review and throughout the decisionmaking process as a Commander in Chief who is analytical, strategic, and decisive, with a broad view of history, national security, and his role," the official said in an e-mail.

But details of confidential meetings and classified documents, along with damning quotes from the principals, paint a picture of the president's team that is at odds with that perception. In Woodward's telling, Obama oversees a staff of bickering advisers and an administration that was rife with infighting during the Afghanistan policy review. If there were any remaining doubts that the "no drama, Obama" mantra left the building long ago, the Woodward book puts them to rest.

In my view, this is how it should be. Good hardy arguments on what to advise a President on what to do, but the President making the final decision.

This is MUCH better than the lock-step G.W. Bush administration.

POLITICS - No to Bush Era Tax Cuts

"Obama Is Against a Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts" by JACKIE CALMES, New York Times 9/7/2010

Excerpt

President Obama on Wednesday will make clear that he opposes any compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy beyond this year, officials said, adding a populist twist to an election-season economic package that is otherwise designed to entice support from big businesses and their Republican allies.

Mr. Obama’s opposition to allowing the high-end tax cuts to remain in place for even another year or two would be the signal many Congressional Democrats have been awaiting as they prepare for a showdown with Republicans on the issue and ends speculation that the White House might be open to an extension. Democrats say only the president can rally wavering lawmakers who, amid the party’s weakened poll numbers, feel increasingly vulnerable to Republican attacks if they let the top rates lapse at the end of this year as scheduled.

It is not clear that Mr. Obama can prevail given his own diminished popularity, the tepid economic recovery and the divisions within his party. But by proposing to extend the rates for the 98 percent of households with income below $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals — and insisting that federal income tax rates in 2011 go back to their pre-2001 levels for income above those cutoffs — he intends to cast the issue as a choice between supporting the middle class or giving breaks to the wealthy.

I find it VERY hard to believe that any sane American can believe the Republican mantra that 2% of taxpayers NEED a tax break that 98% of taxpayers do NOT get.

That anyone with an income ABOVE $200k/year NEEDS a tax break?! These people ALREADY get their taxes cut by using deductions (investments, trusts, tax havens, etc.) that are NOT available to 98% of taxpayers, because these people can afford to hire tax lawyers and others, to "protect" their PERSONAL income.

IRAQ - What Iraq Was, History From the Inside

I have previously posted some articles by Layla Anwar from her An Arab Woman Blues blog.

I wanted to give my readers an inside view (aka non-American) of what is happening in Iraq for balance.

She has two posts that I suggest you read:

Iraq - Grandeur & Destruction. Part I

Iraq - Grandeur & Destruction. Part II

They are long, but worth the read if you are interested in VIEWS OUTSIDE Bush World, GOP Conservatism, and Cheney War Mongering.

IRAN - And the Lies March On

"Bush told in August that Iran nuke program 'may be suspended'" by Ed Henry, CNN 12/5/2007

President Bush was told in August that Iran's nuclear weapons program "may be suspended," the White House said Wednesday, which seemingly contradicts the account of the meeting given by Bush Tuesday.

Adm. Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, told Bush the new information might cause intelligence officials to change their assessment of the Iranian program, but said analysts needed to review the new data before making a final judgment, White House press secretary Dana Perino said late Wednesday.


"Director McConnell said that the new information might cause the intelligence community to change its assessment of Iran's covert nuclear program, but the intelligence community was not prepared to draw any conclusions at that point in time, and it wouldn't be right to speculate until they had time to examine and analyze the new data," Perino said in a statement issued by the White House.

The new account from Perino seems to contradict the president's version of his August conversation with McConnell and raised new questions about why Bush continued to warn the American public about a threat from Iran two months after being told a new assessment was in the works.

But Perino said there was no conflict between her statement and Bush's Tuesday account of the meeting, when he said McConnell "didn't tell me what the information was."

"The president wasn't given the specific details" of the revised intelligence estimate, which was released Monday, Perino said. Nor did Bush mislead Americans in October, when he warned of a third world war triggered by Iran's development of nuclear technology, she said.

"The president didn't say we're going to cause World War III," Perino said. "He was saying he wanted to avoid World War III."

In October, the president told reporters, "If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." The apparent gap between what U.S. intelligence officials knew in August and Bush's later warnings drew sharp criticism from Sen. Joseph Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Democratic presidential candidate, who called Bush's explanation unbelievable.

"I refuse to believe that," Biden said Tuesday. "If that's true, he has the most incompetent staff in modern American history, and he's one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history."

But Perino said there was no need for Bush to pull back on any of his public statements after the August meeting, because McConnell stressed to the president that intelligence officials still had to do "due diligence" to make sure the new information was correct.

"The director advised that there were many streams of information that had the potential to be in conflict, and it would take more time to vet it all to determine validity, and that's why they were not able to meet the deadline," she said in the prepared statement.

Perino said her account came from a conversation that McConnell had Wednesday with another White House official. Earlier, Perino's deputy, Tony Fratto, had refused to provide reporters with further details about the August meeting between Bush and McConnell.

The Bush administration has spent years warning that Iran's development of nuclear power plants and enriched uranium masked an effort to produce an atomic bomb. But in a reversal of a 2005 report, the National Intelligence Estimate released Monday concluded that Iran suspended nuclear weapons work in late 2003 and was unlikely to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb until at least 2010.

Instead of focusing on that reversal, Bush has continued to stress that the report confirms long-standing suspicions that Iran had a nuclear weapons program in the first place. He said Wednesday that Tehran "has more to explain about its nuclear intentions and past actions," including a weapons program "which the Iranian regime has yet to acknowledge."

But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the report was "a declaration of victory" for Iran in the face of international pressure to suspend his country's production of nuclear fuel.

"Iran is a peaceful nuclear country now, and they have all accepted Iran as a nuclear country and have announced they will stand a nuclear Iran," Ahmadinejad said Wednesday.

But Bush said Tuesday the report "doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world." And Perino called Ahmadinejad a "liar" Wednesday, because the new NIE shows that Tehran did have a clandestine nuclear weapons program at one time.

"If anyone wants to call the president a liar, they are misreading the situation for their own political purposes," Perino said. "The liar is Ahmadinejad, and he has a lot of explaining to do."

In the August meeting, the White House said, McConnell told Bush "that the intelligence community would not be able to meet a congressionally imposed deadline requiring a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran because new information had been obtained."

Perino said this information showed the White House was correct in believing that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, which it halted only because of Bush's policies.

"The international pressure -- and the president's approach -- has worked," she said.

"A Pattern of Deception" by Dan Froomkin, Washington Post

President Bush changed the way he talked about Iran in August: He stopped making explicit assertions about the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

On Monday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a new national intelligence estimate in which the nation's 16 intelligence agencies concluded that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program four years ago -- a dramatic rejection of an earlier set of findings.

Bush yesterday said he was only briefed about the new estimate last week.

But a close examination of his word choice over the past year suggests that he learned something around August that got him to stop making claims that were apparently no longer supported by American intelligence.

Instead of directly condemning Iranian leaders for pursuing nuclear weapons, he started more vaguely accusing them of seeking the knowledge necessary to make such a weapon.

Even as he did that, however, he and the vice president accelerated their rhetorical efforts to persuade the public that the nuclear threat posed by Iran was grave and urgent. Bush went so far in late August and October as to warn of the potential for a nuclear holocaust.

Indeed, a careful parsing of Bush's words indicates that, while not saying anything that could later prove to be demonstrably false, Bush left his listeners with what he likely knew was a fundamentally false impression. And he did so in the pursuit of a more muscular and possibly even military approach to a Middle Eastern country.

It's an oddly familiar pattern of deception.

In the rest of this 5 page article, Bush's Changing Words, is a chronological list of what Bush said and when.

Spin, obfuscation, and down-right lies about anything that does NOT fit The World According to Bush.

SECURITY OF AMERICA - For Sale

Homeland Security For Sale
Says it all


Brought to you by Bush Empire Realestate Inc.Sponsored by the GOP

POLITICS - ... and On the Sinking Ship.....

"“Safer, But Not Yet Safe:” Symptoms Of A Larger Problem" by Windspike, Bring It On! 11/20/2007

Get a load of this statement from today’s press washing from the Sexy Dana Perino:

• MS. PERINO: They’ve had conversation s over the past several months. Obviously none of us would have wanted Fran to leave service. I think all of us felt safe because of her work. Of course she always says we are safer, but not yet safe. She dedicated 110 percent of her time and effort to making sure that American citizens could live free from terror. She is an excellent manager. I will say she is also a very good colleague, very supportive, very helpful.


• And so over the past several months as she’s struggled with this decision about whether to continue her over two decades of public service or to pursue some private sector options, she and the President would talk about it. He appreciates her service greatly. And in the statement he praises her for her wise counsel. And those of us who have had the pleasure of working with her can certainly repeat that it is wise and it is always helpful. She’s very thoughtful. And we’re going to miss her a lot, and we wish her luck.

Safer, but no yet safe? Sounds to me like the mantra of the whole of the W, Rove and Co - a means of manipulating the public… Dishing fear to make excuses for never accomplishing anything of value. “She’s very thoughtful?” WTF?

Really, the Press should have been asking, what the hell did Fran do that benefited the American people besides draw a public pay check… which isn’t really a benefit for any one but her, now is it? What exactly did she accomplish on the public dole?

Let’s see what our Cheerleader President has to say about Fran:

• Over the past four and a half years, Fran Townsend has served my Administration with distinction as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Fran has always provided wise counsel on how to best protect the American people from the threat of terrorism. She has been a steady leader in the effort to prevent and disrupt attacks and to better respond to natural disasters.


• Fran’s remarkable career as a public servant has spanned more than two decades. She has prosecuted violent crimes, narcotics offenses, mafia cases and white collar fraud as an Assistant District Attorney in Brooklyn and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Manhattan. During her career, Fran worked to protect the American people as the Counsel to the Attorney General for Intelligence Policy, the Assistant Commandant for Intelligence at the U.S. Coast Guard and as the Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism at the National Security Council.


• With her extensive experience, intellect and candor, Fran has ably guided the Homeland Security Council. She has played an integral role in the formation of the key strategies and policies my Administration has used to combat terror and protect Americans. She has traveled the world to meet with allies in the Global War on Terror and has partnered extensively with first responders at the state and local level to enhance our preparedness. We are safer today because of her leadership.


• Laura and I wish Fran, her husband John, and their two sons, James and Patrick, all the best.

Right, and if we are still living in the fear that the W, Rove and Co elicit every time they need a vote, what good did she do? If you ask me, this is an oft repeated story of another rat jumping the sinking W, Rove and Co ship. And, you might ask…what did Bush accomplish today?

Well, of course, he’s busy flogging the Thanksgiving holiday and holding up the Armed Services folk as a political chess piece to try and salvage any support he might have had for the Iraqi Freedom Spreading experiment he loves so dearly (and has cost us so dearly):

• Today, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces are taking risks for our freedom. They’re fighting on the front lines of the war on terror, the war against extremists and radicals who would do us more harm. Many of them will spend Thanksgiving far from the comforts of home. And so we thank them for their service and sacrifice. We keep their families and loved ones in our prayers. We pray for the families who lost a loved one in this fight against the extremists and radicals, and we vow that their sacrifice will not be in vain. (Applause.)

Right, who’s “we” white man? And, when do we get to give thanks that not another one of our valued soldiers die in vain for W’s “noble” mission that has led so many to the slaughter?

Comments about Fran's performance and service are typical bureaucratic pablum, intended for GOP Dimwits.

POLITICS - More on Our Lier 'n Chief

"Bush talks nonsense" Courier-Journal Opinion

Let's get this straight: President Bush, speaking Tuesday in New Albany, Ind., denounced "free-spending" Democrats in Congress who are going to push the nation toward tax increases?

Would this be the same president who in six years, from 2001 through 2006, signed more than 50 spending bills passed by the "free-spending" Republican majority in Congress that exceeded his budget requests and did not veto a single one?

Would this be the same president who led the United States into a pointless war in Iraq -- without the war tax that American presidents traditionally have demanded in order to pay for military conflicts -- that is rapidly (at the rate of about $200 million a day) approaching a price tag of $500 billion and is likely to reach $1 trillion?

And, is this the same president whose ill-advised tax cuts, skewed heavily to the wealthiest Americans, helped turn a promising federal surplus into an alarmingly high deficit?

The political calculations are obvious. Mr. Bush, whose speech coincided with his veto of a $606 billion bill to fund federal education, health and labor programs, wants voters to focus on the GOP characterization of Democrats as a "tax and spend" party, rather than on Republicans' better established "spend and borrow" record.

But there is a deeper issue: the frustration of many in the White House and in his party over the consistently sour mood of the American public about what the Republican national leadership views as a thriving economy.

The answer, as bipartisan studies by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts suggest, is that even in an economy growing in technical terms, only about a third of Americans now are upwardly mobile -- positioned to improve their overall economic standing relative to their parents'. The others are stuck where they are or even falling backward.

A consequence is a growing divide between an administration that frets about capital gains and the estate tax and a public that feels the burdens of job dislocations, spiraling health and tuition costs and oil prices nearing $100 a barrel.

Michael Gerson, author of Heroic Conservatism, wrote yesterday in The Washington Post about the Pew studies that "conservatism accepts inequality as an economic fact of life -- but it cannot accept the existence of a class-ridden society where inequality is hereditary and permanent."

But some contemporary conservatives do accept such inequality. The audience in New Albany heard from one.

What do you expect from today's GOP Conservatives? They just don't care about the lower and middle class Americans. They only care for their paymasters.

POLITICS - The Caring Pharma Industry

Yap, here's another article pointing to just how $big-pharma$ really, really cares about the American consumer.

"Lobbying stalls generic drug legislation" by Frederic J. Frommer, AP

Excerpt

Legislation aimed at speeding the availability of cheaper generic drugs has stalled in Congress in the face of major lobbying by the drug industry.

The Senate bill would ban most settlements known as "reverse payments," in which a brand-name company pays a generic manufacturer to delay the introduction of the generic drug. The Federal Trade Commission, which has called on Congress to take action, says such settlements could cost American consumers billions of dollars.

An Associated Press review of lobbying reports, from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, found that $38.8 million was spent by at least a dozen generic and brand-name companies and their trade associations on issues including the Senate legislation. The lobbying reports do not specify how much of that money was directed at the reverse payment bill, and they are not required by law to do so.

More than half of those expenses were piled up by the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, which represents brand-name drug companies. PhRMA spent $19.5 million in the 12-month period ending June 30 on in-house lobbying expenses, an increase of about $3 million over the previous 12-month period.

"Lobbyists have a lot of influence in Washington," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Herb Kohl, who chairs the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights. "If we can just get this to a vote, it will be pretty hard for people to vote against it. A vote against this is a vote against consumers."

Kohl, D-Wis., also chairs the Senate Special Committee on Aging, where he has pushed for generic drugs as a way for seniors to save money on their medications. Generic drugs are 30 to 80 percent cheaper than brand-name drugs, according to the Generic Pharmaceutical Association.

Kohl has offered the reverse payment legislation for the past two sessions of Congress. This year, House supporters introduced a similar bill, which remains in committee. Neither bill has come up for a vote, although the Senate bill did make it through the Judiciary Committee a few months ago.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has expressed concerns about Kohl's bill. Hatch issued a statement saying he voted to move the bill through committee this year "with the reservation that we find a balanced solution, one that bars anticompetitive settlements without jeopardizing the very kind of settlements that are critical to consumers and taxpayers."

Read "without jeopardizing the very kind of settlements that are critical to consumers and taxpayers." as "I want to protect the profits of big-pharma over the consumer because they are one of my paymasters."

The FTC has called on Congress to pass legislation to crack down on the reverse payment settlements, although it hasn't endorsed any specific bill.

"Such settlements restrict competition at the expense of consumers, whose access to lower-priced generic drugs is delayed, sometimes for many years," FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras said in testimony before a House task force in September.

Hummm... wonder whose side the Bush Administration is on, really? Then there's the lawyers.

IRAQ - Good Questions, From the Inside

"Is it really an independent country?" by Laith, McClatchy Blog

This question came to my mind when one of my friends wanted to go home to Falluja city west of Baghdad. He lives there but he works in Baghdad. He received a call from his brother telling him to come today to Falluja. My friend took his stuff and went quickly to the bus station. About half an hour later, he came back because he forgot the most important thing among his stuff, he forgot to take his Falluja ID.

He wouldn’t be allowed to go home without having this ID even if he is as famous as Tom Cruise. For those who like to know what is the Falluja ID, I would say its an ID issued by the US army only and specifically for the residents of Falluja city. I don’t want to know why the US army decided to issue these IDs but I only want to the answers of the following questions.

Is it something legal that the US army issue IDs for Iraqi people? Its very normal and legal to issue work IDs fro the Iraqis who work for example with the US army but its not acceptable at all to issue IDs for the residents of any Iraq by the US army or even the US government because this is Iraq, its not California. What makes me really sad that the Iraqi politicians keep repeating “Iraqi is a united independent country”. Is that true? Then why do the people of Falluja have two IDs, the Iraqi ID and the American issued ID?

So, what is the answer to her question. My personal answer is no, Iraq is not an independent country in Bush World. Emperor Bush wants Iraq to be a satellite-state of his empire so his pay-masters can rape Iraqis for their oil.

"Time" by Laith, McClatchy Blog

My trip to the U.S was like a whirl wind! It was short and to the point and I came home with a better understanding of what areas need to be covered for the regular American to better understand the situation in Iraq.

I was greatly surprised that most people didn't have an inkling of what Iraq is - was. I would have thought that as the U.S was at war in Iraq, the regular American would have some idea of what Iraq had, and thus would be better equipped to assess the loss that resulted from this war - but I found that not very many people - amongst those that I met, at least, had any clear Idea of the Iraqi society, and what the war has cost the country, in terms of how it affected our education system, our healthcare, services and infra structure. And although they were aware of the statistics of the casualties lost as a result of the collapse in the security system, the figures were so high as to become surreal - they acknowledged them in their minds but couldn't actually feel them in their hearts.

Each and every person I met was compassionate and supportive - so much so that I am at a loss - if people felt like that, why isn't there an outcry so loud that policy makers have no choice but to stop and listen?? Stop to reconsider and ask themselves the questions that need to be asked at this late stage: "What can we do to amend the mess we created?

"We cannot go back in time to save the hundreds of thousands who died senselessly - but how to save the rest?

"What can we do not only to stop but to mend the decomposition that has occurred in this stable society as a result of a war we chose to wage?

"How can we secure the borders after we decommissioned the former Iraqi Army? After all what's the use of going after al-Qaeda pockets inside the country - when the borders are open to them? Not only to them, but to any who wish to walk in and implement whatever agenda they have?"

And numerous, numerous questions that need to be asked - and answered.

Isn't it time?

Or must we lose more sons, more brothers, husbands and fathers and win nothing but heartbreak and a destroyed country?

What she does not understand is that Emperor Bush and his enablers (GPO Conservatives) DO NOT CARE about what anyone else says or believes.

POLITICS - U.S. Economy in Bush World

"US debt tops $9 trillion for first time-Treasury" by Nancy Waitz, editing by Gary Crosse, Reuters

The U.S. Treasury Department said on Wednesday publicly held U.S. debt breached $9 trillion this week for the first time ever, just five weeks after Congress had raised the statutory borrowing limit.

At the end of September, U.S. President George W. Bush signed a measure to increase the debt limit ceiling to $9.815 trillion from $8.965 trillion, allowing the government to keep issuing debt.

The increase in the debt limit is the fifth since Bush took office in January 2001. The U.S. debt stood at about $5.6 trillion at the start of his presidency.

In approving the debt limit increase, Congressional lawmakers said the $850 billion increase should be large enough to allow the government to continue borrowing into 2009, well beyond next year's presidential and congressional elections.

The Bush administration estimated the U.S. federal budget deficit for fiscal 2007 would total $163 billion. The deficit for the year ended Sept. 30 narrowed by 34.3 percent from the $248 billion gap in fiscal 2006.

Yap, and lets flush even more money down the blackhole of the Iraq War.

POLITICS - Another Example of the Bush Administration "Supporting Our Troops"

"Study: 1 out of 4 homeless are veterans" by Kimberly Hefling, AP

Excerpt

Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday.

And homelessness is not just a problem among middle-age and elderly veterans. Younger veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are trickling into shelters and soup kitchens seeking services, treatment or help with finding a job.

The Veterans Affairs Department has identified 1,500 homeless veterans from the current wars and says 400 of them have participated in its programs specifically targeting homelessness.

The National Alliance to End Homelessness, a public education nonprofit, based the findings of its report on numbers from Veterans Affairs and the Census Bureau. 2005 data estimated that 194,254 homeless people out of 744,313 on any given night were veterans.

In comparison, the VA says that 20 years ago, the estimated number of veterans who were homeless on any given night was 250,000.

Some advocates say the early presence of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan at shelters does not bode well for the future. It took roughly a decade for the lives of Vietnam veterans to unravel to the point that they started showing up among the homeless. Advocates worry that intense and repeated deployments leave newer veterans particularly vulnerable.

In Emperor Bush's administration "supporting our troops" = "supporting my Iraq war" (aka blackhole or money-pit) but not a dime to support our troops at home.

POLITICS - We ARE in Control, Says Bush Administration

"U.S. Military Will Supervise Iraq Security Firms" by John M. Broder & David Johnston, New York Times

All State Department security convoys in Iraq will now fall under military control, the latest step taken by government officials to bring Blackwater Worldwide and other armed contractors under tighter supervision.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates agreed to the measure at a lunch on Tuesday after weeks of tension between their departments over coordination of thousands of gun-carrying contractors operating in the chaos of Iraq.

Mr. Gates appears to have won the bureaucratic tug-of-war, which accelerated after a Sept. 16 shooting in central Baghdad involving guards in a Blackwater convoy who Iraqi investigators say killed 17 Iraqis. Military coordination of contractor convoys will include operations of not only Blackwater, formerly known as Blackwater USA, but also those of dozens of other private firms that guard American diplomats, aid workers and reconstruction crews.

In Iraq, the government approved a draft law to overturn an order imposed by the American occupation authority in 2004 granting the employees of foreign contractors immunity from Iraqi law. Also on Tuesday, the State Department confirmed that some Blackwater employees questioned in connection with the Sept. 16 shooting had been granted a form of immunity in exchange for their statements. However, officials insisted that the immunity was limited and that it did not foreclose the possibility of prosecutions.

At the Pentagon, Geoff Morrell, the chief spokesman, said the military would assert greater control over contractor training, rules for the use of force, employment standards and movements around Iraq.

He said Mr. Gates and military officers in Iraq insisted on the new measures “so they aren’t blindsided by contractors running in and out of their battle space and potentially causing problems.”

Mr. Morrell and his State Department counterpart, Sean McCormack, said that the details of the new arrangement had not been worked out but that the process was on a fast track and that both agencies hoped to have all issues resolved by Thanksgiving.

The top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, will have to approve the arrangement, but he is likely to accept new rules that give his officers greater control over the numerous armed entities operating in his theater.

Ms. Rice and Mr. Gates agreed to tighten the rules for the use of force by armed contractors. Although current rules are quite restrictive and allow force to be used only defensively, the standards have not been enforced and Blackwater guards, in particular, earned a reputation for being quick on the trigger.

Mr. Morrell said the new, more stringent rules would be likely to put the Blackwater guards, and perhaps the people they are responsible for protecting, in greater danger.

“We want everybody operating for the sake of the same mission, O.K., which means, as the secretary has talked about before, invariably State Department contractors are going to have to assume greater risk because we have to operate with the overall mission in mind,” Mr. Morrell said. “And that is winning the hearts and minds, the trust and confidence, of the Iraqi people.”

Three law enforcement officials confirmed Tuesday that State Department investigators did take statements from Blackwater employees after offering them immunity, though they had no authority to do so.

Immunity is intended to preserve the constitutional right against self-incrimination while still giving investigators the ability to gather evidence. Witnesses granted immunity have no right to remain silent but nothing they say can be used against them.

Law enforcement officials said the Blackwater employees were given a Garrity warning, named after a Supreme Court case, Garrity v. New Jersey. This form of limited immunity does not bar a criminal prosecution but is seldom granted in a case in which a criminal prosecution is likely. It is almost never granted without the approval of federal prosecutors.

Humm.... Lets see. Mr. Morrell's comments above seem to admit that contractors were NOT supporting the "overall mission" before now. Gee, really? DUH

State Department investigators granting "immunity, though they had no authority to do so." So, our State Department doesn't know the law?! Really?

Oh, yes; the Bush Administration is in full control..... NOT!

POLITICS - Anti-Science

"Bush and the 'black time for science'" by Dave, Orcinus

We've written infrequently here on the Bush administration's ongoing war against science, but it's always noteworthy when confirmation of the problem (and concern about its effects) comes from people in a much better position to know.

Skip Berger at Crosscut has an excellent piece up citing at length an e-mail he received (in reply to a query) from Ed Lazowska, who was appointed by President Bush as co-chair of the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, and is now the chair in computer science and engineering at the University of Washington.

• The years of the [George W.] Bush administration have been a black time for science in this nation. I speak with the experience of having co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee for Bush, and having chaired the Defense Department's DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] Information Science and Technology Study Group during his presidency. Funds for research, the seed corn of our future competitiveness, have decreased. And the balance of those funds has shifted from longer-range topics — the natural role of the federal government — to shorter-range topics. In the Defense Department, excessive classification of research programs, restrictions on the participation of foreign nationals, and other policy shifts have caused university researchers to abandon working with DoD, meaning that many of the nation's best minds are not focused on defense-related problems.



• Note that DoD funded the research that led to the Internet during the Vietnam war — it is not that we are in a war that is the issue! Presidential scientific advisory committees have been politicized. I have seen this firsthand. The general denigration of science emanating from the White House, and the near complete failure of the President's Science Advisor, Jack Marburger, to speak out, is poisonous. Right here in Seattle, consider the Discovery Institute and its "intelligent design." ("Faith-based science" is not what made this nation the world's leader.) Think about our immigration policy. This nation became the world's leader by welcoming the best and the brightest from all nations, but today we have a devil of a time getting foreign students into UW, or hiring faculty who are foreign nationals; foreign students who are educated here are "sent back where they came from" upon graduation rather than being retained to grow the technological base of our nation.

Short-sighted view of Conservatives.

POLITICS - The Bush Idea of "Administration"

Oh yes, we now have evidence of just what the Bush definition of "administration" is, everything temporary (aka bypass Senate approval).

"Interim Heads Increasingly Run Federal Agencies" by Philip Sheon, New York Times

Excerpt

For now, the most powerful law enforcement official in the federal government is a 47-year-old lawyer little known outside Washington.

Or inside Washington, for that matter.

He is acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler, who is running the Justice Department until a new attorney general is confirmed by the Senate to replace Alberto R. Gonzales. Mr. Keisler had been in charge of the department’s civil division.

The No. 2 and No. 3 officials are also acting — Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford and Associate Attorney General Gregory G. Katsas. More than a quarter of the department’s 93 United States attorneys around the country are “acting.”

At the top of the Department of Homeland Security, there is an acting general counsel, acting under secretary for national protection and acting assistant secretary for strategic plans. At the Department of Health and Human Services, the $600 billion-a-year Medicare and Medicaid programs have had an acting administrator since last fall.

Scholars and other researchers who study the federal bureaucracy say the situation in those agencies is becoming increasingly common elsewhere in the Bush administration.

With only 15 months left in office, President Bush has left whole agencies of the executive branch to be run largely by acting or interim appointees — jobs that would normally be filled by people whose nominations would have been reviewed and confirmed by the Senate. In many cases, there is no obvious sign of movement at the White House to find permanent nominees, suggesting that many important jobs will not be filled by Senate-confirmed officials for the remainder of the Bush administration. That would effectively circumvent the Senate’s right to review and approve the appointments. It also means that the jobs are filled by people who do not have the clout to make decisions that comes with a permanent appointment endorsed by the Senate, scholars say.

While exact comparisons are difficult to come by, researchers say the vacancy rate for senior jobs in the executive branch is far higher at the end of the Bush administration than it was at the same point in the terms of Mr. Bush’s recent predecessors in the White House.

POLITICS - The Bush Police State

"GOP faces 'wipeout' because of Bush" Opinion, Colfax Country Media

Is a police state near? Old-line conservative Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary of the treasury under Ronald Reagan who has recently become known for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq war, had strong words.

Roberts believes ..... that Cheney and Rove intend to use a renewal of the war on terror to rally the American people around the Republican Party.

"Something's in the works. "The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," Roberts continued. "Chertoff has predicted them. ... You have to count on the fact that if al-Qaida's not going to do it, it's going to be orchestrated. ... The Republicans are praying for another 9/11."

Executive orders needed to create a police state are already in place. By simply declaring an emergency, Bush can take over both Congress and the Judiciary (May 9, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 and National Security Presidential Directive 51).

He killed the Bill of Rights with a law that can seize an American citizen without charge and hold people indefinitely (Oct. 17, 2006, Military Commissions Act). He has proven that torture and extraordinary renditions are now standard practices.

Too many Americans think their danger is terrorists. But terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution. Our own government, in the name of fighting terrorism is doing that.

Also former Reagan associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein and Pat Buchanan are warning of the danger.

Bold emphasis, mine

Hyperbole? Sky-is-falling? Maybe, but all Americans should keep a close eye on just what our federal government is doing, especially this Bush Administration. If we don't, we could wakeup someday soon to banging at our door, to be dragged to concentration camps. History does oft repeat.

The true and most prominent threat to our American Democracy has always been close to home, internal.

UPDATE

"Bush Authorized Domestic Spying Before 9/11" by Jason Leopold, TruthOut

The National Security Agency advised President Bush in early 2001 that it had been eavesdropping on Americans during the course of its work monitoring suspected terrorists and foreigners believed to have ties to terrorist groups, according to a declassified document.

The NSA's vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups.

In its "Transition 2001" report, the NSA said that the ever-changing world of global communication means that "American communication and targeted adversary communication will coexist."

"Make no mistake, NSA can and will perform its missions consistent with the Fourth Amendment and all applicable laws," the document says.

However, it adds that "senior leadership must understand that the NSA's mission will demand a 'powerful, permanent presence' on global telecommunications networks that host both 'protected' communications of Americans and the communications of adversaries the agency wants to target."

What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.

But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that's not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law.

Bold emphasis, mine