not 'if', but 'when'

was for several years prior to 9/11/01 a catch-phrase used by those in the counter-terrorism and emergency preparedness business. Not surprisingly, the 9/11 Commission's report (which can be found online here) itself states "The 9-11 attacks were a shock, but they should not have come as a surprise." Indeed. And they didn't. In fact it is now *hopefully* clear to all that warning bells were ringing at several Federal Agencies for the year preceding the attacks of September 11th, leading to scores of interagency memorandums detailing the impending crisis looming over America; like Coleen Rowley's now infamous memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller, the August 6th PDB, and more. President Bush stated very directly "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." This is a curious statement, inasmuch as Mr. Bush had ample opportunity to know of precisely this scenario, in fact, this scenario has always been the one most likely to occur, yet he and his staff did very little... so little it can almost be characterized as nothing. And he can't say that the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief didn't cover this possiblility.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. - excerpt from August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"

By virtue of his own words he has admitted that he either (1)doesn't read the information that his own cabinet provides him, or a much less likely possibility that (2)he read them and deemed their contents not significant enough to warrant action, or lastly (and I think most likely), that (3)he didn't read the information but was briefed on it, deemed it not worthy of further action, buried his head back in the sand and continued enjoying his vacation. I don't really know what to make of the posturing by the GOP that they're more suited to handle the threat of terrorism to America than Democrats. History hasn't proven this true... which may explain the neverending impetus to revise the history shortly after Bush's crew creates it. For this administration black is white, good is bad, and up is down.... have they managed to confuse you yet? Americans are not safer by virtue of their leaders telling them so. We still remain precariously close to another 9/11-style attack. The contention of the Bush administration is that an American presence in the Middle East will help transform the now-more-than-ever hostile region into a burgeoning democracy with a domino effect that will change the world. Of course absent a direct threat to the safety of Americans in particular, that rationale doesn't allow for our military to travel halfway across the globe to fight a paper-thin Iraqi Army with a fraction of the capabilities it retained after it was utterly destroyed during Gulf War I. So the justification used pre-invasion was WMDs. When pressed on how the WMDs were a threat to Americans, it became that Saddam could give them to terrorists. When that didn't pan out the target was again moved and it became about 'liberation'. All of this lending credence to the theory that if you throw enough bad reasons out there, you won't need a good one, because the American public will do the rest of your work for you. What America needs is a President who sets real priorities for our Country; one that understands the threat from Al Qaeda and it's imminence, and is committed to fighting that threat. We need a President who favors science over empty rhetoric. We don't need a President who tries to gain political capital with every speech on terrorism. We don't need a President who caters to the fears of Americans to build a strawman argument that, while you're scared right now, Bush will make you 'less scared'... just more of the up-is-downism. George W. Bush's campaign will spend the remainder of this Summer and Fall attempting to convince the American public that only he can keep you safe from terrorism; that without him (and the approach he is taking to fight terrorism) terrorists may take away your freedoms. To this I'd like to ask Mr. Bush: "When you think of terrorists, do you actually think about them taking over our Country? Do you think about them taking up residence in the White House? Do you think there is a possibility that they'll actually win, and we will lose our freedoms? Do you really believe the things that come out of your own mouth?" The biggest threat to our freedoms are the policies of the Bush administration, crafted in reactive fashion for the purpose of getting "out in front" on an issue they shunned for years and it bit them in the ass. I have never feared that a terrorist will take away my freedom. To suggest that one would (or even could) is silliness. I've come to realize that not only are Republicans not suited to fight terrorism, they don't seem like they're much for running a country either. I think it's time for a wiser, more measured decision-maker to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Hopefully enough Americans believe similarly and, starting next January, we can begin the long process of correcting George Bush's litany of mistakes.

Why the world loves Kennedys, not Bushes

from David Talbot over in the war room at Salon.com

"When I was kid, I went all over the world with my father and my uncle and everywhere we went, they were greeted by throngs of people, thousands and thousands of people reaching out to touch them. Europeans proudly named streets after our presidents, Roosevelt, Kennedy. Our country was adored, these people were desperate for our leadership and for our moral authority, which took nearly 250 years to build. And in just three-and-a-half years this president has destroyed that." Robert F. Kennedy, Jr If a President John Kerry is to restore America's good name, as well as its natural resources, many in activist circles think Bobby Kennedy Jr. should be high on his list of appointees.

If we could be so lucky.

Quote of the day - 7/9/04

from The Quotations Page

I've gone into hundreds of [fortune-teller's parlors], and have been told thousands of things, but nobody ever told me I was a policewoman getting ready to arrest her. - New York City detective

friday's humor file

normally don't read The Onion, but this article <Nation's Liberals Suffering From Outrage Fatigue> was too good not to blog. Funny stuff.

Manufacturing Consent

Much has been said about the Bush administration's predisposition with using rightwing media outlets to help champion their causes, or help Manufacture Consent for whatever agenda they're trying to promote at any given time (The Fox News memo, and the Weekly Standard's assistance in helping frame public support for America's march to war in Iraq being prime examples). Earlier this month more than 50% of the employees of Voice of America signed a petition titled "Who's Stealing America's Voice?". They're speaking out about Bush administration corruption of objective news for political gain, and for cutting back on the variety of stories they are allowed to report. more here, here, and here. "The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful and virtuous." - Frederick Douglas

"good idea of the day" - 7.7.04

Norton asks officials to seek alternative fireworks site

ouch

A Realistic Path in Iraq

President-to-be John Kerry, chose the July 4th editorial pages of the Washington Post to voice his opinion on President Bush's ill-conceived war in Iraq, and includes some suggestions for how we can lessen some of it's negative impacts. ---

Success in Iraq must be separated from our politics. It is too important to our troops who are serving there and to the security of our nation. I hope President Bush will fashion policies that will succeed. But today we are not pursuing the most effective path. It is only by pursuing a realistic path to democracy in Iraq that we can connect our ideals with American common sense. Only then can we heal the wounds between our allies and ourselves and only then can we muster the might of our alliances to isolate our enemies and win the war on terrorism around the world.

--- More here. Happy 4th of July.

dubious justification

Foreign Lobbyist Database Could Vanish Justice Department claims merely copying its foreign agents database could destroy it

Bounding the Global War on Terrorism

"Bounding the Global War on Terrorism" "The global war on terrorism as presently defined and conducted is strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military and other resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security."

The District on the Hill

from The Washington Post.

The District on the Hill Wednesday, June 30, 2004; Page A20 LAST WEEK brought reminders of the District's unique and at times supplicant relationship with Congress. In three instances, congressional panels drove home the point that Capitol Hill still looms large in D.C. affairs despite nearly 30 years of home rule. Much attention focused on a hearing of the House Government Reform Committee on bills to expand D.C. representation in Congress. Two of the four bills represent significant steps forward. The most desirable measure, sponsored by D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), would give the District two senators and one House member. Another bill, introduced by House Government Reform Committee Chairman Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), would temporarily expand the House by two members, to 437, adding one seat for a voting D.C. representative and a fourth member from Utah. The two least attractive measures would shift D.C. voters across the D.C. line. One would count D.C. votes toward the election of Maryland's U.S. House and Senate members. A second would retrocede most of the District to Maryland. To no one's surprise, Maryland and D.C. leaders oppose both measures. None of the bills is expected to pass this year, but this much is clear after key court decisions: The road to a D.C. vote in Congress must start in Congress. The same conclusion applies to the District's most crucial financial problem: the "structural imbalance," or the incapacity of the city's unduly restricted taxing powers to raise enough funds to provide services to the public and the federal government. Congressional leaders, backed by their own watchdog, the General Accounting Office, acknowledged last week in a Senate hearing that the city has been dealt a bad financial hand. Only Congress can provide the remedy. A bill sponsored by Ms. Norton would do just that by authorizing an $800 million payment, adjusted annually for inflation. City leaders have been warned not to hold their breath, however. As with the idea of an expanded franchise, additional funding from Congress this year is a comforting but distant dream. Finally, there's perhaps the unkindest cut of all: congressional reneging on the agreement to provide $13 million for D.C. public schools in exchange for city support for the federally funded school voucher programs. City officials delivered their support. Last week, however, Congress broke its pledge. Egged on by Hill staff members and backdoor lobbyists, key federal legislators placed a temporary hold on $10.6 million of the $13 million pledged to the school system, on grounds that the school spending plan was deficient and that money should be withheld until a permanent superintendent is appointed. Apparently it mattered not to Capitol Hill that the city has an interim superintendent, a school board, and an elected mayor and council who could have addressed the plan's shortcomings. By putting a hold on D.C. school funds, Congress was making another point: that members of the House and Senate -- or their staffers -- can play D.C. school superintendent any time they want and get away with it. All this disfranchisement in the capital of the free world. © 2004 The Washington Post Company

Ken's Brain: update CXV

the Freak w/ the big brain won again... does Jeopardy offer medical insurance with a dental option?

The Enron You've Never Heard Of

from SmartMoney.com

BY NOW, IT seems like a familiar story. A certain energy company stands accused of gleefully bilking consumers out of millions of dollars during the Western electricity crisis of 2000 and 2001. As evidence, prosecutors point to telephone transcripts showing the company's traders discussing allegedly bogus energy deals. No, the company isn't Enron — it's Spokane, Wash.-based energy concern Avista Corp. (AVA) , one of several companies accused by California Attorney General Bill Lockyear of illegally manipulating the wholesale electricity market during the crisis. Avista partnered with Enron in illegal trading schemes with ominous codenames like Death Star throughout the crisis, Lockyear alleges. Lockyear isn't the only one to accuse energy companies of misdeeds. According to a February 2002 study of the California power markets by economists Paul Joskow and Edward Kahn of Harvard and MIT, respectively, wholesale electricity prices during the summer of 2000 were 500% higher than they were during the previous two summers. A significant proportion of the spike resulted from manipulation of the deregulated electricity market by power-trading companies and energy providers, the study concluded. Yet while the state of California has brought more than 60 separate lawsuits against various energy companies, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, hasn't pursued the matter with nearly as much zeal. FERC, which oversees the nation's energy markets, is supposed to ensure that they operate smoothly and without manipulation. Lockyear says it has failed in this critical task — and he's challenging a number of FERC's decisions in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In an April white paper, Lockyear castigated FERC for allowing energy companies operating in California essentially to run amok. "FERC's performance...was abysmal and marked by an abject failure to protect the public interest," he wrote. Beginning in 2000, California state officials, including former Governor Gray Davis, repeatedly called on FERC to institute price caps to stem the bleeding, but FERC waited until June 2001 to do so. Shortly thereafter, the crisis subsided. The recent "Grandma Millie" telephone transcripts of Enron traders gloating about cheating Californians on their electricity bills during the crisis have only fueled Lockyear's outrage (more about that later). California officials say the tapes add to mountains of evidence showing that energy companies reaped billions in illicit gains while FERC sat idly by. For its part, FERC now acknowledges that some manipulation did occur. But it sticks by its longstanding contention that the crisis was mostly the result of California's dysfunctional deregulation scheme and drought conditions in the hydroelectric-dependent West. FERC Chairman Pat Wood replied to the California attorney general's white paper in April with a statement arguing that "it is important to acknowledge that [the energy crisis] was fundamentally a supply problem, which was worsened by a flawed market design." This is no mere semantic argument; billions of dollars hang in the balance. California alone is seeking $8.9 billion in refunds from the power companies (among them, Enron, Avista, El Paso (EP), Mirant (MIRKQ), Reliant Resources (RRI), Duke Energy (DUK) and Dynegy (DYN)). FERC has concluded that the state is owed just $3.2 billion. Several other Northwestern municipalities, which so far have received minimal compensation, are also suing for reparations. The Port of Seattle, the city of Tacoma, Wash., and Snohomish County Public Utility District in Washington, which released the latest Enron tapes, have filed lawsuits in federal courts seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. There's no telling how much compensation these states and municipalities will ultimately receive. What's clear to many, however, is FERC's reluctance to reprimand certain companies charged with wrongdoing. Perhaps the clearest example of this was FERC's decision not to take any enforcement action against Avista relating to the manipulation of Western energy markets. FERC contends that Avista was merely an innocent bystander. But Avista's dealings with Enron suggest otherwise.

lots more here.