IRAQ - NIE Threat Estimate 7/2007

"Bush's Osama Problem" by Dan Froomkin, Washington Post 7/18/2007

Nearly six years after President Bush pledged to capture him "dead or alive," Osama bin Laden is not only still at large, but he and his al-Qaeda organization have apparently benefited greatly from Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

That's not just me saying so. It's the inevitable conclusion from the declassified summary of a White House intelligence report released to great fanfare yesterday.

It turns out that bin Laden and his al-Qaeda leadership are safely ensconced in Pakistan. They're still trying to attack us. And the U.S. occupation of Iraq has provided them with a potent rallying cry, recruiting tool and training ground they would not have had otherwise.

The White House has time and again used the specter of al-Qaeda to cow Capitol Hill into doing its bidding. Similarly, Bush and his aides have lately gone to great lengths to conflate the multifaceted insurgency in Iraq with al-Qaeda. After all, when it's Bush vs. al-Qaeda, how many Americans will side with al-Qaeda?

The report's release shot al-Qaeda back into the headlines. But this time, the al-Qaeda stories have a potentially devastating twist for the administration: As it turns out, Bush's policies may have helped bin Laden more than they've hurt him.

The Analysis

Michael Abramowitz writes in The Washington Post: "The White House faced fresh political peril yesterday in the form of a new intelligence assessment that raised sharp questions about the success of its counterterrorism strategy and judgment in making Iraq the focus of that effort.

"Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has been able to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by repeatedly noting the absence of any new domestic attacks and by citing the continuing threat that terrorists in Iraq pose to U.S. interests.

"But this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday with the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that al-Qaeda 'has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability' by reestablishing a haven in Pakistan and reconstituting its top leadership. The report also notes that al-Qaeda has been able 'to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks,' by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary.

"These disclosures triggered a new round of criticism from Democrats and others who say that the administration took its eye off the ball by invading Iraq without first destroying Osama bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan."

Abramowitz also notes that "Al-Qaeda's participation in the Iraqi violence has figured particularly heavily in recent administration arguments for a continued U.S. troop presence there, because White House strategists regard it as a politically salable reason for staying and continuing to fight."

But, he writes: "Some terrorism analysts say Bush has used inflated rhetoric to depict al-Qaeda in Iraq as part of the same group of extremists that attacked the United States on Sept. 11 -- noting that the group did not exist until after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. These analysts say Bush also has overlooked the contribution that U.S. actions have made to the growth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has been described as kind of a franchise of the main al-Qaeda network headed by bin Laden."

Abramowitz quotes former CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar as saying: "Iraq matters because it has become a cause celebre and because groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Qaeda central exploit the image of the United States being out to occupy Muslim lands."

This is from just page 1 of 5

The bottom line is Bush's invasion of Iraq MADE it a haven for terrorists and fulfilled Osama bin Laden's prophecy, made long before 9/11, that "a Christian nation will invade a Muslim country for oil."

POLITICS - Senator to Rove, Hello? Is Anybody Out There?

Is anybody out there?

Is anybody listening to my prayer?

Is anybody out there?

If you can hear me please take me out of here

Is anybody out there?

"Is Anybody Out There," by Billy Gilman

"GOP senator to Rove: Bush legacy on the line in Iraq" Ed Henry & Dana Bash, CNN

A Republican senator says he warned top White House aide Karl Rove that President Bush quickly needs to craft a workable plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in order to salvage his legacy.

White House spokesman Tony Snow insisted last week that Bush’s GOP allies in Congress are not breaking with Bush over the war. But Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, told CNN that he warned Rove last week that “The president is a young man and should think about his legacy.”

He should know history will not be kind unless he can come up with a plan that protects the troops and stabilizes the region,” Voinovich said he told Karl Rove, whom Bush dubbed “the architect” of his 2004 re-election.

Voinovich added that other Republicans are close to speaking out against the President’s current strategy

“I won’t mention anyone’s name. But I have every reason to believe that the fur is going to start to fly, perhaps sooner than what they may have wanted.”

In private, Voinovich is more blunt, using a profanity to describe the White House’s handling of Iraq by charging the administration “f—ed up” the war.

Voinovich stressed he expressed his views to Rove as a positive “opportunity” for the president to come together with Democrats and Republicans on an exit strategy that will be good for the country.

A White House spokeswoman confirmed to CNN that Rove, who speaks with Voinovich frequently, had the phone conversation with the senator last week and they did discuss the President’s legacy. But the spokeswoman declined to provide further details, citing Rove’s desire to keep phone conversations with senators private.

“I got into this to get them to move, and they’re moving,” said Voinovich, who is pushing for the president to put together a workable plan for withdrawing U.S. troops that will be ready in time for a September progress report on the military surge from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

“I really think that they understand,” said Voinovich. “We’ll see by September what they put together. But the main thing is were running out of time — we should take advantage of this time.”

And while Voinovich is giving the White House some breathing space until September to receive the progress report from Gen. Petraeus, the senator is privately warning if there’s not a dramatic new strategy ready to be unveiled in the fall, he will endorse a Democratic plan mandating a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days.

In June, Voinovich urged Bush to take a new tack in Iraq — one he dubbed “Plan E,” for exit. Voinovich called for a decrease in U.S. military engagement, coupled with a “surge” in diplomatic engagement.

His break with the White House came one day after another senior Republican, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, delivered a dramatic Senate floor speech declaring the president’s current strategy was not working.

Since then, Voinovich said he has spoken to both Rove and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and is expressing some satisfaction that in the short term, the White House has heard his concerns.

POLITICS - Dumber Voodoo Economics

After the Dumb Voodoo Economics of the Reagan era, we have (TA-DA) Dumber Voodoo Economics of the G.W. Bush era.

"Voodoo Economics Jr." editorial, Daytona Beach News-Journal

There was a lot of gloating out of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on Wednesday. President Bush was talking up the state of the economy and the budget at midyear, and predicting a budget deficit of about $200 billion by year's end, down from $248 billion last year, and a surplus of $33 billion in 2012. "The policies of low taxes and spending restraint have produced a clear and measurable record of success," he said. "You can't argue with what I'm telling you. These are the facts."

Well, they're his facts, anyway. You can argue with what he's telling you, because some of his facts are wrong, and some are smokescreens. Bush is among the wildest-spending presidents in the history of the nation. Discretionary spending -- that is, spending unrelated to mandatory spending out of his control, like Social Security and Medicare -- increased 57 percent in just five years on his watch, and counting. It took Ronald Reagan, the previous big spender who always preached fiscal discipline, eight years to increase discretionary spending by 59 percent. (Spending increased 14 percent in Bill Clinton's eight years.)

Bush is taking credit for reducing the deficit. But that's like a thief stealing the Mona Lisa, then trudging back to the Louvre in triumph five years later and saying, "Here's half the painting, anyway. Now call me a hero." Bush came to office after Bill Clinton spent the previous eight years cleaning up the budget mess and deficits left by Reagan and Bush's father. Clinton inherited a $290 billion deficit. He handed Bush a $236 billion surplus, which Bush promptly turned into record-breaking deficits again thanks to reckless and unneeded tax cuts that overwhelmingly favored the rich. "During the time when we cut taxes to today," he said, "our economy has grown by more than $1.9 trillion. This amount is larger than the entire economy of Canada."

Actually, if the deficit ends at "only" $200 billion this year, that'll bring the combined deficits of the Bush years to a staggering $1.6 trillion, also an amount larger than the entire economy of Canada. The more telling number is the growth in the federal debt: $3.1 trillion during the Bush years alone. That's more than the entire economy of China -- an appropriate comparison, considering how much Bush has compromised the American economy's fundamental soundness now that foreign governments like China own so much of Americans' public debt.

Yes, the economy grew in the last five years, adding more than 8 million jobs. But consumers and government powered the economy on an unprecedented borrowing-and-spending binge, helped in good part by a real estate bubble manufactured by Federal Reserve policy. The bubble has burst. Debts define the colossus that is the American economy. There's little to no wiggle room should the economy take a downturn. "That's how the economy works," Bush said. "When you've got more money in your pockets to save, spend or invest, this causes the economy to grow."

That's assuming that the money in your pocket is yours to spend. A national debt approaching $9 trillion, or 70 percent of the size of the economy, says the money isn't quite yours, while the economy is growing literally on borrowed time.

IRAQ - Definitions of our "Mission"

"The Ever Changing Definition of ‘Mission’ In Iraq" by Jordan Grossman, Think Progress

In June 2005, ThinkProgress noted the Bush was constantly revising the definition of our “mission” in Iraq.

Reporting on his escalation strategy this week, President Bush claimed “satisfactory” progress in many areas of the “new mission” in Iraq. Bush has changed the definition of our “mission” in Iraq so many times, he has made it impossible for the American public, U.S. forces, and the Iraqi population to have any confidence that the mission will be ever completed.

THE PRE-WAR MISSION WAS TO RID IRAQ OF WMD

• Bush: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.” [3/6/03]

AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, THE MISSION EXPANDED

• Bush: “Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” [3/22/03]


• Bush: “Our forces have been given a clear mission: to end a regime that threatened its neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction and to free a people that had suffered far too long.” [4/14/03]

THEN THE MISSION WAS COMPLETE

• Bush: “On Thursday, I visited the USS Abraham Lincoln, now headed home after the longest carrier deployment in recent history. I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: Their mission is complete, and major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” [5/3/03]
  

BUT THEN IT CONTINUED AGAIN

• Bush: “The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq.” [7/30/03]

THEN THE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP A FREE IRAQ

• Bush: “That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens.” [11/4/03]


• Bush: “We will see that Iraq is free and self-governing and democratic. We will accomplish our mission.” [5/4/04]

AND TO TRAIN THE IRAQI TROOPS

• Bush: “And our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting; make sure they can stand up to defend their freedoms, which they want to do.” [6/2/05]


• Bush: “We’re making progress toward the goal, which is, on the one hand, a political process moving forward in Iraq, and on the other hand, the Iraqis capable of defending themselves. And we will — we will complete this mission for the sake of world peace.” [6/20/05]

THEN IT SHIFTED TO ADVANCING DEMOCRACY

• Bush: “We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission. … Advancing the ideal of democracy and self-government is the mission that created our nation — and now it is the calling of a new generation of Americans.” [11/30/05]

AND PROTECTING AMERICA FROM TERRORISTS

• Bush: “In the coming days, there will be considerable reflection on the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and our remaining mission in Iraq…By helping the Iraqi people build a free and representative government, we will deny the terrorists a safe haven to plan attacks against America.” [3/11/06]

My insert: Let us not forget the fact that our invasion of Iraq acted as a magnet for terrorists around the world.

• Bush: “We will finish the mission. By defeating the terrorists in Iraq, we will bring greater security to our own country. And when victory is achieved, our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.” [3/18/06]

THEN THE MISSION WAS PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE IRAQI POPULATION

• Bush: “In fact, we have a new strategy with a new mission: helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad. Our plan puts Iraqis in the lead.” [1/13/07]


• Bush: “[I]t’s the combination of providing security in neighborhoods through these joint security stations, and training that is the current mission we’re going through, with a heavy emphasis on security in Baghdad.” [4/10/07]

AND NOW?

• Bush: “It’s a new mission. And David Petraeus is in Iraq carrying it out. Its goal is to help the Iraqis make progress toward reconciliation — to build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and is an ally against the extremists in this war.” [6/28/07]

POLITICS - More Rats Leave Captain Bush's Sinking Ship

"Another GOP Senator breaks with Bush on Iraq" by Joe Sudbay, America Blog 7/5/2007

New Mexico's Republican Senator, Pete Domenici, publicly broke with George Bush over Iraq today. He wants a new strategy immediately. Like Dick Lugar who broke with Bush last week, Domenici is one of the Republican old-timers:

• U.S. Senator Pete Domenici Thursday joined a growing chorus of Republicans who are calling for a change in course in U.S. military strategy in Iraq sooner rather than later.


• The New Mexico Republican says he supports a bipartisan Senate bill that would create conditions that could allow for a drawdown of U.S. combat forces in Iraq by next March.


• Domenici says he does not want to wait until September, when military commanders are to give an assessment. He says things are getting worse, not better, in Iraq.

Bush wants to push back the September time-frame. He'll never make the right decisions about Iraq. Never has, never will. Now, even Republicans are saying enough.

Just yesterday, Bush was playing politics with the Iraq war again according to The Hill:

• President Bush Wednesday used his Independence Day speech to take a thinly veiled swipe at Democratic leaders, saying withdrawing troops from Iraq based on politics “would not be in our national interest.”

That's an interesting spin because Democrats have been trying to force a new policy, while Bush continues to engage in politics. That's been the whole strategy of the Bush administration for year. Politics over policy. But, the GOPers on the Hill are suffering the political consequences so, increasingly, Bush's Iraq problem is with members of his own party.

My own conclusion is that Bush is brain-dead. He's not getting the message even when being hit over the head by a 2x4 wielded by his own party.

Then again, this is just more of Bush's my-way-or-no-way attitude.

POLITICS - Scooter Libby & Bush

"Editorial: Loyalty, not legality, honored at the White House" Shreveport Times

• "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..."

Declaration of Independence
signed July 4, 1776

Too often in the course of human events the Bush administration presents Americans and the world a perplexing view of the institutional health of this 231-year-old experiment in self-government.

The president's jail

sentence commutation for White House aide Scooter Libby arrives just in time to inject a dose of cynicism into what Americans prefer to keep as a day of celebration and optimism for a great nation. But we find that White House staffers apparently are more equal than the rest of us who might be convicted of obstructing justice in a leak involving the CIA.

But what else can we expect from an administration where Libby's benefactor, the vice president, asserts he is not part of the executive branch?

Already under a cloud for replacing competent U.S. attorneys in order to influence the political landscape, the president now shows he is ready to short-circuit the justice system on the back end by deciding a federal judge — one of Bush's first judicial appointments as president — didn't get Libby's sentencing right.

There's more in the article

This is just one of many editorials/comments on this issue, but the theme is the same. We have a president that promised to bring to justice anyone who was involved in the Valery Plane case. From his actions, loyalty to his Administration trumps his promise. Lying to a Grand Jury and all other charges Libby was CONVICTED for are not applicable. Fellow Americans, heed this example of Bush "ethics." And this dim-wit seems not to see this is an example of why his stats are in the toilet, then again, he may not care what the American people think.

POLITICS - Bush Administration's Brown-Shirts

Blackwater USA

POLITICS - GOP and the Porcelain Bowl, Opinion

"The Republican Party and Conservative Movement Are On Life Support" by A. Alexander, Progressive Daily Beacon

Make no mistake about it the Republican Party, if not the entire Conservative movement, is on life support. Rigor mortis may already have set in.

George W. Bush has an approval rating of 26 percent. Only corporations (18%) and Congress (23%) are disliked by more people. Republicans might be tempted to find some hope in the Democratic-led Congressional approval rating, but that would be to their further detriment.

Understand, the Republican Party's self-proclaimed "Commander Guy," their "Decider"-in-Chief, has closed in on Nixon-like approval ratings. Considering Nixon was forced to resign from office, that's a pretty ugly reality. The GOP's second in command, Dick Cheney, proclaimed himself a new and never before heard of fourth branch of government. And, according to Mister Cheney, his fourth estate, comprised solely of him, is beyond the reach of the Constitution and exempted from all oversight. Hey, if a person is going to make up stuff, might as well go all the way.

Honestly, regardless of the Democratic-controlled Congress having the lowest approval rating in a decade, with Mister Bush and Dick Cheney orbiting the political universe, what possible hope do Republicans have? If George W. Bush's approval falls any lower, Republicans are going to begin begging the Democrats for a mercy impeachment. Too, one is left to wonder if a bodiless cat with a big grin isn't a regular visitor to Mister Cheney's self-created alternate universe.

In fairness to Republicans, bleak as their existence is today, it is easy to understand why they might find at least a glimmer of hope in the peoples' disappointment in Congress. Also, as the dissatisfaction with Congress runs rather deep, it is possible to see why Republicans might be tempted to assume Mister Bush and Dick Cheney will be of no consequence to their 2008 political fortunes. Sometimes pity insists one allow Republicans to dwell in their delusions and denial. After all, it isn't polite to speak poorly of the soon-to-be deceased ... especially when their prognosis worsens by the moment.

The reality for Republicans, however, is that there is no hope for the GOP. Despite the peoples' grave disappointment in Congress, they appear to be savvy enough to distinguish between Democratic efforts and Republican obstructionism. In the same period of time that Congressional approval fell through the floor, the peoples' Congressional preference for Democrats over Republicans rose by 5 percent. Last month people preferred Democrats to Republicans by 7 points and now, the gap is 12 percent (46-to-34 percent).

WHOOSH, gurgle, gergle........ OPPS, some left floating.....

POLITICS - More From Bush World

Constitution of the United States of America Bush Empire

(click for better view)

POLITICS - Boy! These People Put Tricky-Dicky to Shame

"A New Cheney-Gonzales Mystery" by Michael Isikoff, Newsweek Periscope

A new battle has erupted over Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to submit to an executive order requiring a government review of his handling of classified documents. But the dispute could also raise questions for embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. For the past four years, Cheney's office has failed to comply with an executive order requiring all federal offices—including those in the White House—to annually report to the National Archives on how they safeguard classified documents. Cheney's hard-line chief of staff, David Addington, has made the novel argument that the veep doesn't have to comply on the ground that, because the vice president also serves as president of the Senate, his office is not really part of the executive branch.

Cheney's position so frustrated J. William Leonard, the chief of the Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, which enforces the order, that he complained in January to Gonzales. In a letter, Leonard wrote that Cheney's position was inconsistent with the "plain text reading" of the executive order and asked the attorney general for an official ruling. But Gonzales never responded, thereby permitting Cheney to continue blocking Leonard from conducting even a routine inspection of how the veep's office was handling classified documents, according to correspondence released by House Government Reform Committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman.

Why didn't Gonzales act on Leonard's request? His aides assured reporters that Leonard's letter has been "under review" for the past five months—by Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). But on June 4, an OLC lawyer denied a Freedom of Information Act request about the Cheney dispute asserting that OLC had "no documents" on the matter, according to a copy of the letter obtained by NEWSWEEK. Steve Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists researcher who filed the request, said he found the denial letter "puzzling and inexplicable"—especially since Leonard had copied OLC chief Steve Bradbury on his original letter to Gonzales. The FOIA response has piqued the interest of congressional investigators, who note Bradbury is the same official in charge of vetting all document requests from Congress about the U.S. attorneys flap. Asked about the apparent discrepancy, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the OLC response "was and remains accurate" because Leonard's letter had generated no "substantive work product."

Waxman told NEWSWEEK he now plans to investigate the handling of the issue by Justice as well as Cheney's refusal to comply with the executive order, which he called part of a "pattern" of stonewalling by the veep. Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said, "We're confident we are conducting the office properly under the law." She also pointed to comments by White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino, who said that Bush, not the National Archives, was the "sole enforcer" of the executive order relating to classified information.

Yap, another issue to add to our "straight-forward, I'm not a crook" Bush Administration.

POLITICS - GOP "How Dare They Question Emperor Bush!"

"Lawmakers to Investigate Bush on Laws and Intent" by Carl Hulse, New York Times

Lawmakers say they plan to dig deeper into the Bush administration’s use of bill-signing statements as ways to circumvent Congressional intent.

In a limited examination of the administration’s practice of reserving the authority to interpret legislation, the Government Accountability Office determined that in 6 out of 19 cases it studied, the administration did not follow the law as written after President Bush expressed reservations about some legislative directives. By using signing statements, the president has reserved the right not to enforce any laws he thinks violate the Constitution or national security, or that impair foreign relations.

The accountability office, a watchdog agency, in a report issued Monday, did not pass judgment on whether the agencies were responding to the signing statements or whether the president had the constitutional authority not to comply. But Congressional officials said Tuesday that the findings were alarming since the administration had apparently not complied with the law in 30 percent of the cases scrutinized.

“Federal law is not some buffet line where the president can pick parts of some laws to follow and others to reject,” said Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the Appropriations Committee, one of two senior lawmakers who sought the review.

Mr. Byrd and aides to Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee and joined in seeking the study, said their next step would be to explore the signing statements to determine the broad extent of their impact. Mr. Byrd noted that another agency, the Congressional Research Service, had identified 700 provisions in law questioned by the administration.

“Moving forward, I plan to ask auditors to take a look at these provisions and determine what legal violations they find,” Mr. Byrd said. “Once we have the facts, we will be able to determine the next steps.”

The Bush administration’s frequent use of signing statements has been one front in the battle between the White House and some in Congress over the power of the executive branch.

Administration officials said that it was fully within the president’s power to interpret how laws should be carried out by the executive branch and that the White House had acted appropriately to keep Congress from overreaching and meddling too much in the independent executive branch of government.

“The executive branch has an obligation to remain within constitutional limits,” said Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman. “The point of the signing statement is to advise where the executive sees those limits.”

The accountability office said signing statements date back to the 19th century and might have started with President Andrew Jackson’s declaration that a road Congress wanted built from Detroit to Chicago would not extend beyond Michigan.

Mr. Byrd and Mr. Conyers cited a Congressional Research Service finding in April that the Bush administration had made use of the statements to raise objections to provisions of the laws he was signing to a much greater extent than any of his predecessors. Critics said Mr. Bush was relying on the statements to avoid veto fights with Congress, even when it was under Republican control, while still killing provisions he found objectionable.

Bold emphasis mine, and there's more in the full article

Interpretation of bold paragraph: Emperor Bush does not have to follow laws passed by Congress and, further, he is the only interpreter of Constitutionality, the Supreme Court be damned.

POLITICS - "We Really Support Our Troops, REALLY"

"Troops' 1-month breaks blocked" by Gregg Zoroya, USA Today

U.S. commanders in Iraq are rejecting a recommendation by Army mental health experts that troops receive a one-month break for every three months in a combat zone, despite unprecedented levels of continuous fighting and worsening risks of mental stress.

Instead, commanders are trying to give troops two to three days inside heavily fortified bases after about eight days in the field, said Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief aide to the ground forces commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno.

"We would never get the job done of securing (of Baghdad) if we went out for three months and came back" for one, Anderson said.

U.S. forces in Iraq spend more time in combat without a break than those who fought in Vietnam or World War II, according to Army psychologists who studied troops in Iraq.

U.S. commanders can't match the World War II policy, Odierno said in a news conference late last month.

"Even in World War II and other times … we would pull forces off the line and bring them back on. Here we don't do that," Odierno said. "They (U.S. troops) are out there consistently every single day. So you have to be mentally and physically tough."

President Bush committed 28,000 more troops to Iraq this year as part of an escalation that started in February.

Army psychologists say continual combat may cause more mental health problems. Their research, conducted in Iraq last year, shows that 30% of troops experiencing high levels of combat demonstrate signs of anxiety, depression or acute stress.

Army Col. Carl Castro, a research psychologist who co-wrote the mental health study, said combat "is extremely, extremely stressful." That stress is aggravated, he says, by multiple tours of duty and deployments that have been extended from 12 months to 15.

Castro and Maj. Dennis McGurk, who co-authored the study, recommend U.S. troops by company or battalion be pulled back into fortified areas to rest for one month after every three months of combat, a recovery period similar to that used in World War II.

Castro says U.S. troops have never spent as much time on the front lines without "a significant break" to recover from the demands of war.

More breaks would relieve stress, says Army Spc. Jeremy Osborn, 27, who finished a 14-month stint in Iraq in February.

"The body and mind need to take a break from always being on guard," he said. "Never knowing when we were going to get attacked again was quite stressful."

Bold emphasis mine

By all means, lets add this to families having to buy armor out of their own pocket for Troops in Iraq, longer and longer deployments and extensions, on-and-on; but "we support our Troops" says Emperor Bush.

POLITICS - Bush White House Motto, "The Rule of Law Sucks"

"The Return of the 18-minute Gap" by Kagro X, Daily KOS

The undead body of Watergate still lumbers through Republican White Houses. And, it appears, it's a creature of habit.

Via Think Progress, we learn that Henry Waxman's House Oversight committee finds:

• The number of White House officials using RNC e-mail accounts isn't a "handful of officials" as claimed by Dana Perino in March. Nor the "50 over the course of the administration" as she later claimed. Rather, the committee has learned that nearly twice that number, at least 88 White House officials have been using the outside accounts.


• Karl Rove himself is responsible for some 140,216 such e-mails -- at least those which have been preserved. Also accounting for a significant volume of such communications: former White House Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 e-mails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 e-mails). Fully 75,374 were sent to or received from individuals using official ".gov" e-mail accounts. That's "official business" over questionably secure RNC servers, folks.
  


• Of the 88 officials identified as using such e-mail accounts, 51 of them have miraculously had their e-mail records disappear. Golly! Among the 37 officials for whom the RNC did preserve records, those records evidence "major gaps." For instance, despite the enormous volume of e-mails known to have been sent or received by Rove during certain periods, for others -- like the first term, for instance -- only some 130 e-mails are available.
  


• Finally, it appears that -- surprise! -- the White House Counsel's office under Alberto Gonzales was fully aware of the use of the RNC e-mail accounts, but took no action to preserve them as required under the Presidential Records Act.

All of which is no surprise, when you consider the Bush White House's motto, "The Rule of Law Sucks."

POLITICS - Again, The Bush Administration

"Special counsel calls for firing Lurita Doran" Think Progress

In a sternly written letter dated last Friday and obtained by CongressDaily, Special Counsel Scott Bloch advised the president that Doan should “be disciplined to the fullest extent for her serious violation of the Hatch Act.”

Under administrative statute, the “fullest extent” for a political appointee such as Doan is termination.

“Despite engaging in the most pernicious of political activity prohibited by the Hatch Act, Administrator Doan has shown no remorse and lacks an appreciation for the seriousness of her violation,” Bloch wrote Bush, referring to the law barring executive branch employees from engaging in partisan political activity.

Because Doan is a political appointee and serves at the pleasure of the president, it is up to Bush to decide how to respond to Bloch’s recommendation, including ignoring it altogether. Bloch’s letter did not include a request for additional information or a formal response. The White House did not respond to calls for comment at presstime.

Ah, yes. Another from the Administration that promised, what, it would be the most straight-froward and honest Administration? Or something like that. Oooo Ya.

POLITICS - Mad Man on the Loose

"Report: In Meeting, ‘Wild-Eyed’ Bush Thumped Chest While Repeating ‘I Am The President!’" by Nico, Think Progress

Georgie Anne Geyer writes today in the Dallas Morning News about President Bush’s strange behavior during a recent meeting with “[f]riends of his from Texas.”

• But by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness.



• Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated “I am the president!” He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of “our country’s destiny.”

This is the second time in recent weeks that accounts have surfaced of Bush lashing out or “ranting” in private meetings when responding to criticism of his Iraq policy. Chris Nelson of the Nelson Report offered a similar account earlier this month:

• [S]ome big money players up from Texas recently paid a visit to their friend in the White House. The story goes that they got out exactly one question, and the rest of the meeting consisted of The President in an extended whine, a rant, actually, about no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he’s doing things would be OK…etc., etc. This is called a “bunker mentality” and it’s not attractive when a friend does it. When the friend is the President of the United States, it can be downright dangerous. Apparently the Texas friends were suitably appalled, hence the story now in circulation.

Like the tearful House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Bush needs to channel his bottled up emotions towards a more worthy end — winding down the war in Iraq rather than defending the status quo.

MOTHER EARTH - More on Global Warming from NASA

"NASA: Danger Point Closer Than Thought From Warming" by BILL BLAKEMORE, ABC News

'Disastrous Effects' of Global Warming Tipping Points Near, According to New Study

Even "moderate additional" greenhouse emissions are likely to push Earth past "critical tipping points" with "dangerous consequences for the planet," according to research conducted by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Institute.

With just 10 more years of "business as usual" emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas, says the NASA/Columbia paper, "it becomes impractical" to avoid "disastrous effects."

The study appears in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Its lead author is James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

The forecast effects include "increasingly rapid sea-level rise, increased frequency of droughts and floods, and increased stress on wildlife and plants due to rapidly shifting climate zones," according to the NASA announcement.

There's much more in the full article.

But of course the Bush Administration still hums & haws over the issue and has agencies using bureaucratic delays to regulations even though the courts have ruled that they can regulate.

It's all smoke-and-mirrors to block any action that MAY HELP mitigate Global Warming. The truth is that the knuckle-dragging Bush Administration still does NOT believe Global Warming is a real danger or that it even exists.

POLITICS - Brave New Bush World, Cowards Does Make

"Smithsonian toned down exhibit on climate change in the Arctic" Associated Press, Herald Tribune

The Smithsonian Institution toned down an exhibit on climate change in the Arctic for fear of angering the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration, says a former administrator at the museum.

Among other things, the script, or official text, of last year's exhibit was rewritten to minimize and inject more uncertainty into the relationship between global warming and humans, said Robert Sullivan, who was associate director in charge of exhibitions at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.

Also, officials omitted scientists' interpretation of some research and let visitors draw their own conclusions from the data, he said. In addition, graphs were altered "to show that global warming could go either way," Sullivan said.

"It just became tooth-pulling to get solid science out without toning it down," said Sullivan, who resigned last fall after 16 years at the museum. He said he left after higher-ups tried to reassign him.

Smithsonian officials denied that political concerns influenced the exhibit, saying the changes were made for reasons of objectivity. And some scientists who consulted on the project said nothing major was omitted.

Sullivan said that to his knowledge, no one in the Bush administration pressured the Smithsonian, whose $1.1 billion (€0.82 billion) budget is mostly taxpayer-funded.

Rather, he said, Smithsonian leaders acted on their own. "The obsession with getting the next allocation and appropriation was so intense that anything that might upset the Congress or the White House was being looked at very carefully," he said.

Yap, in other words the Smithsonian "leaders" have become cowards because this dictatorial Bush Administration hold the purse-strings. To hell with science and lets present a "balanced" view. Of course Bush gets to define what "balanced" is, like Global Warming is not real.

HOGWASH!

POLITICS - Bush World, "Supporting the Troops"

"White House opposes 3.5 percent pay raise" by Rick Maze, Army Times

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Yap. Another example of "supporting our troops" from the Bush Administration. By all means, lets keep the gap between military pay and civilian pay, it's "good" for our troops. Heaven forbid they get spoiled by paying them equal to civilians! Nah, their job is not worth more pay. Dieing for your nation is a privilege and you should not expect to be paid more.

HOGWASH!

POLITICS - The Administration Without a Conscience

"U.S. Aims to Weaken G-8 Climate Change Statement" by Juliet Dilperin, Washington Post

Article ends with.....

The U.S. representatives in Bonn, however, are trying to soften the message of the 18-page climate change document by deleting sections that would call on the industrialized world to modify activities linked to recent warming. They also proposed striking one of the document's opening phrases, which says, "We underline that tackling climate change is an imperative, not a choice. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and sustain our common basis of living."

Philip Clapp, who heads the advocacy group National Environmental Trust and has read the document, said U.S. opposition to the draft declaration could strain the country's relationship with its allies and jeopardize the world's ability to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decade.

"The administration is proposing to eliminate any statement that acting on global warming is urgent and all measures that will begin to reduce global warming pollution, including any proposal to improve the energy efficiency of our economy," Clapp said in an telephone interview yesterday. "A continued U.S. refusal to take a lead in combating global warming will set back progress for years."

Bush administration officials are also resisting calls for efficiency targets in the declaration, in particular a sentence that reads, "Therefore we will increase the energy efficiency of our economies so that energy consumption by 2020 will be at least 30 percent lower compared to a business-as-usual scenario."

....Ah, yes. An Administration beholding to big bu$ine$$. (read as GOP big money contributers)

POLITICS - Reminiscent of Rome?

"The Bush Calamity So Reminiscent of Rome" by Bill Hare, Political Cortex

This article ends with a very pertinent quote:

When asked what form of government the new nation of America had wrought following its historic constitutional convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin famously answered, "A Republic if you can keep it."

Currently the answer to that same question must be, "A Republic if you can reclaim it."

Well readers, what's your answer?