Hot Air: Hopelessly Upside Down

The World is Flat

no one is above the law

Not even you, Mr. President

Amen

The Baltimore Sun: Rubber stamp It is no surprise that the state Public Service Commission approved the governor's agreement with Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. on electricity rate relief. But the rapidity with which the commission acted is stunning -- and disturbing.

The PSC held a single hearing on the plan to phase in the transition to 72 percent higher, market-priced electricity. It was held in downtown Baltimore, starting at 2 p.m. Thursday and lasted about four hours -- a time when many BGE customers are at work. It was a farce.

And then less than two hours after the hearing ended, the commission, which votes in private, approved the plan with a slight modification. The decision was announced late Friday after The Sun reported the vote.

This is one rubber stamp that apparently was inked and ready from the get-go.

You may recall the hubbub when e-mails turned up showing that PSC Chairman Kenneth D. Schisler has been more than a little cozy with a utility industry lobbyist; more such e-mails came out yesterday. You may also recall that the administration of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. has not only replaced four of five PSC commissioners since 2002 but also cleaned house at the agency. And you may recall that the state legislature recently passed a bill -- vetoed by Mr. Ehrlich -- that would have canned the commissioners.

Given all that, you'd think that the PSC would at least make a show of serious deliberation on the so-called rate-relief plan. (It really doesn't provide much rate relief; it mainly delays the pain.) Instead, its inquiry into the governor's plan was frightfully thin, essentially consisting of softball questions to the company (Will your opt-in Web site be consumer friendly?) and evasive answers to the public's questions. (We're just here to talk about rate relief -- not the high rates themselves.)

The most telling moment was when Del. Curtis S. Anderson, one of only two legislators to show up for the hearing, asked Mr. Schisler if the PSC had taken into account the size of BGE's profits last year in considering the relief plan. (Its parent, Constellation Energy Group, reported record earnings.) The Baltimore Democrat's point was that the company could kick in more to provide greater relief. Mr. Schisler did his best not to respond directly, casting the very definite impression that improving the governor's plan for the benefit of consumers was the farthest thing from his mind.

Delegate Anderson is leading an effort to get enough legislative votes to bring the General Assembly back into session to force a better rate-relief plan than the governor's. But that's not the body to deal with this issue. The responsibility by law is the PSC's, and it has failed to serve the best interests of Marylanders.

absolutely pathetic

the 'editors' of terroristwarning.com have literally lost their minds:

May 1st 2006, Civil War Begins Make no mistake about it, this is not just simple protesting, protesting with the goal of causing financial harm is Economic Terrorism plain and simple - and those people who participate are economic terrorists.

more of this, please

Thank you Lord!

FEMA's broken; fix it, don't throw it away Abolishing FEMA and leaving it inside Homeland Security is a pathetic shell game that wastes time, money and, as hurricane season approaches, could waste lives. Rather than fix what is broken, the Senate is suggesting disposing FEMA and setting up something that sounds remarkably similar to what was there before.

What should be dismantled is not FEMA, but the Department of Homeland Security. Americans have watched the ridiculous -- color-coded terror alerts that became fodder for late-night TV pundits -- transform into epic tragedy -- refugees from Katrina huddled in the Superdome and the Convention Center in New Orleans without food, supplies or a glimmer of hope. Congress threw money at relief, and surprise of surprises, the money has been siphoned off to pad the pockets of people not affected by Katrina. America does not need another bureaucratic blunder.

The Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress should return to a basic tenet of the modern GOP: Less government is better. If FEMA was returned to a Cabinet-level agency answerable to the president and led by competent administrators hired for their expertise, not their political connections, there would be no repeat of the Katrina debacle. ~ Hurricanes are a natural occurrence. Even hurricanes as devastating as Katrina are not unprecedented. Local, state and federal agencies knew it was coming and failed to react appropriately. Congress and the president should hold Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff responsible for FEMA's gross failure. FEMA should be extracted from Homeland Security; it does not need to be abolished.

If the Senate is still intent on throwing bureaucrats at a problem, they should volunteer for rebuilding efforts in New Orleans. The paperwork alone they generate could help plug a levee.

NSL-gate

The FBI secretly sought information last year on 3,501 U.S. citizens and legal residents from their banks and credit card, telephone and Internet companies without a court's approval, the Justice Department said Friday.

"Philosophy and Disaster"

wow, another must-read in this month's edition of Homeland Security Affairs journal.

ha

that'll leave a mark.

Disband DHS!

Charles Perrow, Research Scholar and Professor of Sociology at Yale University penned this report, which is featured in thie month's edition of Homeland Security Affairs Journal. (31 pages, .pdf)

The Disaster after 9/11: The Department of Homeland Security and the Intelligence Reorganization

It is FILLED throughout its 31 pages with many of the most difficult to deal with realities of DHS that have thus far been ignored by policymakers in Washington. Even as microscopic attention is being paid to this issue following the horrible impacts of Hurricane Katrina. I've chosen to excerpt what I found most interesting... by no means is Mr. Perrow's report intended to be a scathing rant against the Bush Administration. If that's the impression you get, its because of the emphasis I've chosen to place on certain portions. Take that for what its worth. Long and short, it makes far more sense to disband DHS, which has become the problem rather than any intelligent solution, than it does to destroy FEMA and try to rebuild what will essentially be a carbon copy of it. I highly recommend reading the entire report. But to tempt your appetite: ------------------------------------------- THE THREAT MODEL Why was the administration of George W. Bush so unprepared for a terrorist attack upon our homeland? The answer to this question is one part of the explanation for the dismal performance of the Department of Homeland Security. (The other part of the answer is that we expect too much of our organizations and the matter of predictable organizational failures, which we will come to later.) FAILED WARNINGS Before 9/11, the administration virtually ignored numerous warnings about our lack of preparedness for terrorist attacks. They came from two independent commissions, security experts such as Richard Clarke and Rand Beers, and members of the intelligence transition team who advised the new administration that further attacks on our soil were quite possible. (We had been repeatedly attacked abroad, in coordinated attacks upon two of our African embassies, our base in Saudi Arabia, the U.S.S. Cole, and at home, in the first attack upon the Twin Towers in NYC.) As late as March 2004 the White House was continuing to say that it had made counterterrorism its top priority upon coming into office in January 2001. For example White House spokesman Scott McClellan, echoing similar comments from top Administration officials, said that "this Administration made going after al Qaeda a top priority from very early on," according to a press briefing on March 22, 2004. But the White House admitted that in the face of increased terror warnings before 9/11 it only once convened its task force on counterterrorism before 9/11. President Bush himself admitted that he "didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11, despite repeated warnings that Al Qaeda could be planning to hijack airplanes and use them as missiles.3 This negligence came at roughly the same time that the vice president held at least ten meetings of his Energy Task Force and attended at least six meetings with Enron executives, presumably more pressing business than convening the task force. Similarly, Newsweek reported that internal government documents disclosed that, before 9/11, the Bush Administration moved to "de-emphasize" counterterrorism. As one of many pieces of evidence Newsweek notes that when "FBI officials sought to add hundreds more counterintelligence agents" to deal with the problem, "they got shot down" by the White House.4 The very day before the 9/11 attack, Attorney General John Ashcroft rejected an increase of fifty-eight million dollars the FBI requested to finance 149 new counterterrorism agents, 200 analysts, and fifty-four more translators. He also proposed that a Department of Justice program designed to provide equipment and training for first responders in the event of a terrorist attack be cut by sixty-five million dollars.5 The president’s national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the September 11 attacks, yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions. Richard Clarke’s "urgent" memo asking for a meeting of top officials on the imminent al Qaeda threat was not acted upon for almost eight months. Finally, the White House threatened to veto efforts putting more money into counterterrorism, tried to cut funding for counterterrorism grants, delayed arming the unmanned airplanes that had spotted Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and terminated a highly classified program to monitor al Qaeda suspects in the United States. Many of these failures are cited by the report of the 9/11 Commission, but one surprising admission did not make it into the report: Scott McClellan, while saying al Qaeda was a top priority from the beginning, in the same press briefing on March 22, 2004 mentioned a previously forgotten report from April 2001 (four months before 9/11) that shows the Bush Administration officially declared it "a mistake" to focus "so much energy on Osama bin Laden."6 Even when warned of imminent attacks in August of 2001, President Bush did not say “this is very serious; I want daily briefings on this and let the other relevant agencies know how seriously this must be taken.” Instead, he told the 9/11 Commission that he was “heartened” to learn that seventy full field office investigations were underway, and presumably that would take care of things and was the end of the matter.7 ~ A flurry of documents, including White House press releases dug up by the press and critics of the administration and released in the spring of 2004, indicated that immediately after the 9/11 attack there were three major initiatives by the White House. The first was an invasion of Afghanistan, to destroy bin Laden’s base and training ground; next was preparation for an invasion of Iraq, which had been on the agenda since the Bush administration took office in January 2001, according to many commentators. Protection from terrorist attacks here in the U.S. was a distant third. Even the pursuit of bin Laden in Afghanistan was not aggressive. The concern with terrorism after 9/11 seemed eerily distant. Journalist Dana Milbank reported: In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The document, dated October 12, 2001, shows that the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts with the creation of 2,024 positions. But the White House Office of Management and Budget cut that request to $531 million. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, working within the White House limits, cut the FBI's request for items such as computer networking and foreign language intercepts by half, cut a cyber-security request by three quarters and eliminated entirely a request for ‘collaborative capabilities.’9 This background sets the stage for the homeland defense initiative that eventually resulted in the Department of Homeland Security. Despite the politically powerful rhetoric of the president and the White House about “eliminating” the terrorist threat, it was not high on the agenda. In the first nine months after 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan was planned and carried out, planning for an Iraq invasion stepped up, and massive tax cuts for the wealthy moved forward, but only a small office of fifty or so professionals was set up in the White House to deal with homeland security. This gave Congress, and especially the Democrats, the chance eventually to foster a response in their own terms. ~ The forty or so warnings in 2000 about al Qaeda in the Presidential Daily Briefings – a much higher threat level than in 1999 – appeared to have no effect. ~ Organizational Problems: Displacement of Missions A small chunk of the new Department of Homeland Security contains the Federal Emergency Management Agency. What would happen to its traditional concern, natural disasters? The fate of programs concerned with natural disasters under DHS was a concern from the beginning. FEMA Director Joe Albaugh was asked early in 2002 about this and told Congress that the traditional role of FEMA would not be affected. But even Republican lawmakers were not convinced. Rep. Don Young (D-AK), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said that if the Homeland Security Secretary wanted to redirect the agency and focus on preventing terrorist attacks, he could reduce “other [FEMA] missions and direct those resources entirely to security.” Congressman Young had good reason to think this possible. This is what President Reagan’s first appointment did, downgrading natural and industrial disasters and upgrading the threat of a nuclear attack and the rounding up of domestic radicals.31 ~ To forestall this, the chair of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, Richard Armey (R-TX) redrafted the White House proposal to keep FEMA primarily an agency dealing with natural disasters. Since the White House objected, this suggested that a displacement of its mandate would indeed be in the cards. Some senators and the highly regarded former FEMA head, James Witt, along with the Brookings Institution, were all opposed to putting FEMA in the new Department.32 Brookings foresaw the problems that were to come in a report that concluded “while a merged FEMA might become highly adept at preparing for and responding to terrorism, it would likely become less effective in performing its current mission in case of natural disasters as time, effort, and attention are inevitably diverted to other tasks within the larger organization.”33 Instead, the authors of this report urged that FEMA retain its status as an independent agency and that federal preparedness and response functions be consolidated within that agency, rather than within DHS. A serious problem has emerged that concerns the critical area of first responders – police, fire, emergency medical, and various voluntary associations and homeowners associations. The title of a 2003 Council of Foreign Relations task force report summed up the problem: “Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.”37 The underfunding by government at all levels was declared to be extensive. The report estimated that combined federal, state, and local expenditures would have to be tripled over the next five years to address this unmet need. Covering this funding shortfall using federal funds alone would require a fivefold increase from the current level of $5.4 billion per year to an annual federal expenditure of $25.1 billion. Nor would these funds provide gold-plated responses; they would go to essentials. For example, the Council’s executive summary gave these examples of deficiencies:

• On average, fire departments across the country have only enough radios to equip half the firefighters on a shift, and breathing apparatuses for only one-third. Only ten percent of fire departments in the United States have the personnel and equipment to respond to a building collapse.
• Police departments in cities across the country do not have the protective gear to safely secure a site following an attack with weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
• Public health laboratories in most states still lack basic equipment and expertise to adequately respond to a chemical or biological attack, and seventy-five percent of state labs report being overwhelmed by too many testing requests.
• Most cities do not have the necessary equipment to determine what kind of hazardous materials emergency responders may be facing. A study found that only eleven percent of fire departments were prepared to deal with the collapse of buildings with over fifty inhabitants, thirteen percent with chemical or biological attacks, and only twenty-five percent with equipment to communicate with state or federal emergency-response agencies.38

Furthermore, the funds that the federal government did allocate for emergency responders were sidetracked and stalled due to a politicized appropriations process, the slow distribution of funds by federal agencies, and bureaucratic red tape at all levels of government, according to GAO reports. ~ ORGANIZATIONAL USES Organizations, as I have argued, are tools that can be used by those within and without them for purposes that have little to do with their announced goals.39 A new organization such as DHS invites use. As soon as the department was established, the corporate lobbying began. Four of Secretary Tom Ridge’s senior deputies, in his initial position as assistant for homeland security at the White House, left for the private sector and began work as homeland security lobbyists, as did his legislative affairs director in the White House. The number of lobbyists who registered and listed “homeland,” “security,” or “terror” on their forms was already sizeable at the beginning of 2002, numbering 157, but jumped to 569 as of April 2003. One lawyer for a prominent Washington, D.C. law firm was up-front about corporate interests. He mentions in his on-line resume that he authored a newsletter article titled “Opportunity and Risk: Securing Your Piece of the Homeland Security Pie.”40 It is a very large pie indeed. A web page document, “Market Opportunities in Homeland Security,” introduces one to the “$100 billion” homeland security marketplace, for $500.00 plus shipping. Less exuberant in its predictions, a Frost & Sullivan report indicates the industry generated $7.49 billion just in 2002, with total market revenues of sixteen billion dollars estimated for 2009. Frost and Sullivan is an “international growth consultancy,” found at www.frost.com. A report from Govexec.com by Shane Harris, “The homeland security market boom,” published less than six months after 9/11, documents the aggressiveness of U.S. business in flocking to the new funding source. “Every good company out there can take what they do and reposition it for homeland defense,” says Roger Baker, the former chief information officer of the Commerce Department, and now with a private company.41 There were intra-government uses too. Presidential declarations of disaster areas, and the federal funds that followed, varied directly with the political importance of the area to the president of the time. Shortly after 9/11 the PATRIOT Act was passed. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he wrote in the criteria for distributing some $13.1 billion among the states. His committee used a formula long in use for distributing much smaller funds, one that favored the small states. The small states now resisted any change in the formula, and could do so since they had the power in the Senate. The funding was almost exactly in reverse order of the threat. (The degree of threat being used had been assessed by a non-governmental research organization using sophisticated probability models.) The ten highest amounts went to states and districts with the least threat, except for Washington, D.C., where the congresspeople live. Thus Wyoming received sixty-one dollars per person, California only fourteen dollars. Alaska, hardly a target for terrorism, received fifty-eight dollars, while New York, the target of six separate plots by Islamic terrorists in the last decade, got only twenty-five dollars per person. ~ A more serious charge than providing a barrel of pork for states and corporations is made by Eric Klinenberg and Thomas Frank in a Rolling Stones article. They argue that Katrina was the occasion for furthering a privatization policy within DHS and FEMA that amounts to an expansion of “market-based government.” Rather than label it “pork” they call it “looting,” and then document it. Some 300 corporate lobbyists and lawyers gathered in a Senate office building, barely a month after the hurricane struck, to hear Senate Majority leader Bill Frist (RTN) announce that some $100 billion would be spent on Katrina recovery (and many attendees thought that was less than half of what would be spent, as do Klinenberg and Frank). No-bid contracts followed, going to large, politically connected corporations, with so little oversight that the GAO was appalled, and the press headlined stories of gargantuan waste.51 Disasters are opportunities. It is speculated that the Katrina/Rita disaster is the large wedge for privatization and reducing social welfare spending. ~ Departure of Key Personnel The departure of seasoned terrorist experts started almost immediately. Rand Beers had thirtyfive year’s experience in intelligence; he had replaced Oliver North, who was the director for counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics in the Reagan administration. Beers spent seven months in the new department, and five days after the Iraq invasion in March 2003 he resigned. Three months later he told a Washington Post reporter of his disaffection with the counterterrorism effort, which was making us less secure. The focus on Iraq, he said, “has robbed domestic security of manpower, brainpower and money.”54 Agreeing with many, Beers saw the minimalist Afghanistan war as only dispersing al Qaeda and not pursued enough to disable it, and the maximal Iraq war as recruiting terrorists. Another disaffected expert, Richard Clarke, left in February of 2003, just before the Iraq invasion, saying the same thing. His revelations about the misdirected, under-funded, and bureaucratically incompetent response to the terrorist threat, Against All Enemies, made the best seller lists in April 2004. Others departed or would not be recruited. A New York Times story in September 2003, six months after the start of the department, reported two top officials leaving. “So few people want to work at the department that more than fifteen people declined requests to apply for the top post in its intelligence unit – and many others turned down offers to run several other key offices, government officials said.”55 The administration announced that 795 people in the FBI’s cybersecurity office would be transferred to DHS, but most decided to stay with the more reliably funded, higher-status FBI and only twenty-two joined the new department.56 Flynt Leverett, who served on the White House National Security Council for about a year until March 2003 and is now a fellow at the Brookings Institution, observed, "If you take the (White House) counterterrorism and Middle East offices, you've got about a dozen people ... who came to this administration wanting to work on these important issues and left after a year or often less because they just don't think that this administration is dealing seriously with the issues that matter.”57 (For other examples see Clarke’s Against all Enemies.) [the final 5+ pages concern the integration of intelligence into DHS, which leads into the "Dreary Conclusions"] DREARY CONCLUSIONS There is no doubt in my mind that the nation is somewhat safer since the 9/11 attack. Suspects have been apprehended, the FAA has made changes, and so has the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But the first two were made outside of the new Department of Homeland Security, and the third easily could have been made without its appearance. The department has had very limited success in making our vulnerable chemical and nuclear stockpiles more secure. Our borders are still so porous that it would be sheer luck if a guard happened on to a terrorist. Only a few of the thousands of containers that daily enter our ports are said to be under some surveillance, though DHS has been active there. But the new surveillance (and more breaches of basic privacy, unfortunately) of populations that might harbor terrorists is handled by Justice. Billions have been spent to improve intelligence and first responder capabilities, but intelligence funding is outside of DHS. That does not leave us with much to be grateful for from [the] department. And we have no idea how many more billions would need to be spent, and where to spend them, in order to close all the holes in our open society. It is foolish to think our society will ever be safe from determined terrorists, but it is probable that we have raised the bar just enough to make it a bit more difficult for them, and this may be at least a small part of the explanation as to why we have not been successfully attacked since September 11, 2001 – over four years at the time of this writing. A better explanation for the hiatus on attacks is that the U.S. has been shown to be vulnerable, and that may be enough for the terrorists. There is room for small attacks, of course, but more pressing for the Islamic Jihad is getting “infidel” troops out of Islamic nations (principally U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but there are other countries) and destabilizing Islamic regimes that are corrupt and shaky, driving out all infidels and installing fundamentalist regimes. Terrorist have shown no aptitude for sophisticated attacks involving biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons.68 The London subway attack was primitive. The Madrid train station attack appears to have been motivated at least as much by previous jailing of Moroccan terrorists as by any attack upon state support of the Iraq war. Al Qaeda signed on and helped, but it did not seem to be part of their fundamental strategy. Europe is full of dense, disaffected colonies of Muslims with their own grievances. But the U.S. has none. The FBI even recently declared in a secret memo that they had no evidence of al Qaeda cells in the U.S.69DHS may even have reduced our protection from our two other types of disaster, natural and industrial. While DHS promulgates an “all-hazards” approach, hurricane Katrina in 2005 prompted inquiries that disclosed substantial funds were diverted from programs aimed at natural disasters to those focused on potential terrorist attacks. First responder funds, for example, were cut. Funds for anti-terrorist efforts (improved documentation requirements; watch lists; surveillance of mosques, ports, airports and public buildings; and many of the disturbing provisions of the PATRIOT Act) do not always help with the other hazards. Funds for bio-chemical suits and radiation detection were spent in areas where there is no industrial activity that might be a source of such danger. Still, we have a porous society, far less protected (and less inconvenienced) than our European allies and Israel. A few suicide bombers coordinated to blow up tunnels, bridges, and airports in our congested and concentrated transportation system would panic our government, and it would be easy to shut down the Northeast power grid for weeks with a few well-placed, small explosions. Suitcase bombs in a chemical plant (they are still poorly protected) could easily put seven million people at risk. Tank cars with ninety tons of deadly chlorine routinely go by or even park near the centers of our cities, Washington, D.C. included, and are vulnerable to a small bomb. A drive-by attack on the spent fuel cooling tank at a nuclear power station could release, in minutes, more radiation than is held in the core. I do not foresee attacks on these by terrorists, but weather and industrial accidents (including simple road and rail accidents) can cause them. Even if there were no foreign terrorists, these are awesome targets and DHS has done little to protect us from attacks on them. The awesome size of these targets is of our own making, made large and vulnerable for reasons of small economies and unwillingness to have a few inconveniences. Very little is being done, and can be done, about all three threats, without basic reductions of our vulnerabilities.70 Unfortunately, we cannot look to DHS for action on this score, nor, it seems, from Congress and the White House. A reduction of our vulnerabilities would also be a very difficult project, perhaps more difficult than (and almost as improbable as) a reasonable defense against terrorism, but I think not. ------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE: Charles Perrow (2006) "The Disaster after 9/11: The Department of Homeland Security and the Intelligence Reorganization", Homeland Security Affairs: Vol. II: Issue No. 1 (April, 2006), Article 3. http://www.hsaj.org/hsa/volII/iss1/art3

eureka!

Tomorrow's Washington Post Tough Primary Race Confronts Lieberman: If there's a God in heaven, he'll see to it that Connecticut's voters get rid of Lieberman.

And a note to Ms Dinardo:

"Nancy DiNardo, Connecticut's Democratic Party chairman, worries that the Lieberman-Lamont battle will detract from the primary showdown between two Democrats vying to challenge the state's popular Republican governor, M. Jodi Rell. 'I think we should focus on beating Republicans,' DiNardo said."

Lieberman basically IS a Republican.

how old is 'too old' for a good ole fashioned spanking?

Woman spanked at work sues for US$1.2M Who spanks a 53 yr old?

keeping the immigration debate in perspective

Who's employing day laborers? Your neighbor.

best editorial of the year

by far... by Denise Civiletti

Paper Loses Business Due to Editorial, But Won't Change Ways At The News-Review, in Riverheard, N.Y., some advertisers punished the paper for endorsing John Kerry. But the editor/co-publisher says the paper will never change positions or coverage for the sake of selling ads.

[updated to provide a non-subscription required link to the full editorial, and to respond to Denise, who sent a nice "thank you" for supporting her piece: You're very welcome Denise. It takes a special person to stick to their convictions in the face of petty commercial pressure. Thanks for stopping by and I sincerely hope you continue to find the content here useful. Good luck. Don't stop fighting the good fight! ]

utter bullshit

NYT: A long-running effort by the Bush administration to send home many of the terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has been stymied in part because of concern among United States officials that the prisoners may not be treated humanely by their own governments

No quagmire: U.S. forces training their own attackers

Today's Washington Post [In Iraqi Town, Trainees Are Also Suspects] "There's two kinds of Iraqis here, the ones who help us and the ones who shoot us, and there's an awful lot of 'em doing both," said Hoover, 26, of Newark, Ohio. "Is it frustrating? Yes, it's frustrating. But we can't just stop working with them." ~ ...in a town where the local population is hostile to the American presence in Iraq, U.S. soldiers have developed a deep distrust of their Iraqi counterparts following a slew of incidents that suggest the troops they are training are cooperating with their enemies. Earlier this month, a U.S. sniper team caught 14 policemen placing roadside bombs in the nearby town of Riyadh. More than 60 other police officers are named on a watch list of suspected insurgent collaborators, according to U.S. military policemen who train them. And last week a raging fire erupted from a sabotaged oil pipeline 50 feet from a police checkpoint, covering the sky with a blanket of black smoke. ~ "In some places they hide the fact that they don't like you. They don't hide it here," ~ "It's like the Chicago police department in the 1920s, so infested with mobsters that even the good ones are corrupt because they don't want to get killed," said Staff Sgt. Ryan Horton, 28, a military policeman from Dallas who works closely with the Iraqi police. "They all live in the community with the terrorists, and so do their families. They are very, very intimidated." ~ "I've seen them laughing when we come back in with a vehicle destroyed by a bomb," he said. "I've seen them stand 10 feet away and do nothing but watch when we are in the middle of a firefight." ~ "They want to be able to claim they are not associated with us," ~ "Many of you told me the attacks are the work of foreigners," said Gray, 48, of Herscher, Ill. "Gentlemen, my conclusion is that the problem is not foreigners, but a problem within your tribes. And if the problem is within your tribes, the solution lies with all of you in this room." ~

Gray and Hutson said they had considered bringing to Hawijah an Iraqi army battalion from Kirkuk, where security forces are composed primarily of Kurds. The move, they acknowledge, would be intensely provocative for a population already furious about Kurds' intention to bring more territory under the control of their semiautonomous northern region.

"It would be a disaster," said Sekran, the Iraqi army battalion executive officer. "The population would refuse this with violence, and it would cause a civil war."

Other U.S. officers said a better path is withdrawing all outside troops and leaving the city to the local security forces. "Sometimes I think we just give them something to shoot at. When we leave, all that might just go away," Tapalman said. "But then they'd be in charge."

GOP: a scourge on Democracy

AP: Miss. Governor Helped Implicated Firm WASHINGTON - A GOP telemarketing firm implicated in two criminal prosecutions involving election dirty tricks got its startup money from Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, financial records show. Barbour's investment company arranged a quarter-million-dollar loan to GOP Marketplace in 2000 and also gave a promotional plug to the telemarketer several months later, according to Virginia corporation records and other documents.

when America supports the President's policies

you don't get scenes like this:

Frank Rich back at NY Times

Raw Story has excerpts from tomorrow's column:

Each week brings new confirmation that the White House, as the head of British intelligence put it, was determined to fix "the intelligence and facts" around its predetermined policy of going to war in Iraq. Today Bush tries to pass the buck on the missing WMD to "faulty intelligence," but his alibi is springing leaks faster than the White House and the CIA can clamp down on them. We now know the president knew that the intelligence he cherry-picked was faulty -- and flogged it anyway to sell us the war. ~ "There was almost a concern we'd find something that would slow up the war," Tyler Drumheller, a 26-year CIA veteran and an on-camera source for "60 Minutes," said when I interviewed him last week. Since retiring from the CIA in the fall of 2004, Drumheller has played an important role in revealing White House chicanery, including its dire hawking of Saddam's mobile biological weapons labs, which turned out to be fictitious. Before Colin Powell's fateful U.N. presentation, Drumheller conveyed vociferous warnings that the sole human source on these nonexistent WMD labs, an Iraqi emigre known as Curveball, was mentally unstable and a fabricator. "The real tragedy of this," Drumheller says, "is if they had let the weapons inspectors play out, we could have had a Gulf War I-like coalition, which would have given us the ((300,000)) to 400,000 troops needed to secure the country after defeating the Iraqi army."

EU probes alleged CIA abduction

Reuters:

SKOPJE (Reuters) - European Union investigators, probing the alleged CIA abduction of a Kuwaiti-born German, on Saturday visited a hotel where he stayed in Macedonia in 2004.

"Why was he here for 23 days? And was he here voluntarily, or detained?" asked Claudio Fava, who heads the committee in the European parliament investigating allegations of secret prisoner transfers and illegal detentions by the CIA in Europe.

Human rights groups cite the case of Khaled el-Masri as an example of U.S. "extraordinary rendition" -- or secret transfers of terrorist suspects to third countries where they face abuse or torture.

The hotel visit ended a three-day trip to Macedonia by the investigative team of the European parliament.

Fava told Reuters the investigators wanted to know who had paid Masri's bill at the hotel, where he said for the first 23 days of 2004.

"Somebody paid the bill," Fava said in the foyer of the Skopski Merak hotel in a leafy district of the capital, Skopje. "But this is my question: Who paid?"

Fava said on Friday there was no "hard evidence" to confirm Masri's claim he was kidnapped by Macedonian agents before being flown by the CIA to Afghanistan for interrogation.

Masri says he was pulled from a bus and detained on the Macedonian border on New Year's Eve 2003.

He told investigators he was held by Macedonian guards in a hotel and flown by the CIA to Afghanistan, where he was jailed as a terrorism suspect before being dumped without explanation in May 2004 in Albania.

Macedonia, pursuing EU accession talks and a U.S. military ally in Iraq, denies any wrongdoing. It has acknowledged holding Masri at the border, but says he was released a few hours later.

Interior Minister Ljubomir Mihailovski said on Friday Masri had exited at the main border crossing with Kosovo, Serbia's U.N.-run southern province. He described claims he left by plane as "pure speculation."

But the investigators point to a stamp in Masri's passport from Skopje airport dated January 23, 2004, the day his lawyer alleges he was flown to Kabul via Baghdad and subjected to months of torture. Masri is suing former CIA chief George Tenet.

"It's a little bit strange that a jobless guy came from Germany by bus, without a lot of money in his pocket, to close himself voluntarily in this room and then he paid by cash some 2,000 euros ($2,509) for an expensive room," said Fava.

Washington has declined public comment on the case.

how to fuck up peaceful periods of the 'cycle'

Haaretz: Settlers attack IDF jeep driving Palestinian children from school

mega-ironic story of the day

CNN: A man who spent 12 years in prison for murder before new DNA testing exonerated him last year was killed in a hit-and-run as he walked on the city's South Side.

Corporate bedroom politics from Ehrlich's cronies in Maryland

Private vote OKs rate plan

"State secrets" run amok

ABC News: Feds Try to Dismiss Domestic Spying Suit

"100,000 Families Are Fleeing Violence"

so says Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi. Full story in today's New York Times

moron (sic) Allen

Ryan Lizza: GEORGE ALLEN'S RACE PROBLEM Kleiman: With friends like these ... Digby: Portrait of The Racist As A Young Man

Love him, Republicans. He's worthy.

bad news for Bob Ney

Prosecutors Opt for Wide Probe of Rep. Ney

shaking head

Wonkette: Seriously, Is It Even Possible To Be Fired From DoD?

"U.S. Violates Treaty Against Torture Abroad and at Home"

so says the ACLU

the neocon's self-fulfilling prophecy

CNN: Report: Extremists push for terror haven in Iraq

"your reports" are now online

from Steven Aftergood, at FAS' Secrecy News:

U.S. News and World Report reported last January that at least three publications of the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence, all critical of the Agency, had been withheld from the CIA web site ("A Tangled Web Woven," by David E. Kaplan, U.S. News, January 30, 2006).

No longer do you need to request them. Read 2 of them yourself, here: "Intelligence for a New Era in American Foreign Policy" and here: "Analytic Culture in the U.S. Intelligence Community: An Ethnographic Study" the 3rd is forthcoming.

"Why Rove Testified For A Fifth Time"

Murray Wass' latest at National Journal.

what's so offensive about the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish?

Chicago Sun-Times: "'The intention of recording 'Nuestro Himno' has never been to discourage immigrants from learning English and embracing American culture,' Kidron said. 'We instead view 'Nuestro Himno' as a song that affords those immigrants that have not yet learned the English language the opportunity to fully understand the character of 'The Star-Spangled Banner,' the American flag, and the ideals of freedom that they represent.'"

Country Reports on Terrorism: 2005

all reports in .pdf format: Table of Contents -- Chapter 1 -- Legislative Requirements and Key Terms -- Chapter 2 -- Strategic Assessment -- Chapter 3 -- Terrorist Safe Havens -- Chapter 4 -- Building International Will and Capacity to Counter Terrorism -- Chapter 5 -- Africa Overview -- Chapter 5 -- East Asia and Pacific Overview -- Chapter 5 -- Europe and Eurasia Overview -- Chapter 5 -- Middle East and North Africa Overview -- Chapter 5 -- South Asia Overview -- Chapter 5 -- Western Hemisphere Overview -- Chapter 6 -- State Sponsors of Terror Overview -- Chapter 7 -- The Global Challenge of WMD Terrorism -- Chapter 8 -- Foreign Terrorist Organizations -- National Counterterrorism Center: Country Reports on Terrorism 2005, Statistical Annex -- Supplement on Terrorism Deaths, Injuries, Kidnappings of Private U.S. Citizens

Jean Schmidt: Fucking Liar

enjoy your one term, Jean.

The Ohio Elections Commission on Thursday reprimanded U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt for claiming on her Web site last year that she had two college degrees when she had only one. The commission in a unanimous ruling said Schmidt had violated campaign law. The Republican went to Congress last year in a special election to replace Rob Portman, whom President Bush appointed U.S. trade representative and is set to take over the White House budget office.

straight shootin' Putin

exactly

So Algeria is buying 7.5 billion dollars worth of arms from Russia? My first thought: why?

Egypt, who used to be the hegemon of north Africa, is now self-focused and concerned with regime stability and domestic terrorist threats. Libya gave up its WMD program, and Morocco seems to be pursuing a quiet policy of counter-terrorism and modest economic expansion. I suppose Algeria has decided that this is the point to exploit the relative peace in the region and seize the mantle of power. We’ll have to see what the specifics of the deal are, but Algeria becoming a regional deal-breaker in North Africa could be a serious detriment to US policy there, and it could threaten Morocco, one of our allies.

This is something to keep an eye on. To say nothing of the fact that Russia seems to be willing to arm anyone with petrodollars to the teeth in spite of US protests.

George Allen is an imbecile

Which is precisely why I'm not the least bit surprised that so many Republican voters like him. [updated to correct a spelling error. Thanks imbeciles!]

Squirm and Squeal

is Rove about to out Cheney, now that Fitzgerald forced him back to the stand to clarify his previous testimony?

10 members of the House sue George W. Bush for violating the Constitution

from BRAD BLOG:

The bill signed by the President, on February 8, 2006 at 3:43 p.m., never was passed by the United States House of Representatives.

see the press release from the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee here. (.pdf)

"Protecting the Homeland 2006/2007"

a new report from Brookings

Why the CIA's secret flights irk Europeans

CSM:

...an interim report by a committee investigating such activity alleges that the CIA occasionally snatched suspects from city streets and whisked them away to far countries or to the US detention facility in Guantánamo, Cuba. ~ ...the response does indicate that the US has a black eye not so much with European governments, but with European publics ~ "These investigations and the fact that in this case it's coming out of the European Parliament suggest how this is more a reflection of European public opinion - and the publics here are very suspicious of what the US is doing," says Karen Donfried, an expert in transatlantic relations at the German Marshall Fund in Washington. ~ ...the CIA has responded to the European Parliament report by reiterating that transferring international terror suspects - a practice known as 'rendition' - has been CIA policy for decades. But it denies undertaking what is called 'extraordinary rendition,' or the transfer of suspects to third countries where torture is known to be used. ~ ...European countries still are more apt to see the fight against terrorism as a police and intelligence matter and eschew calling it a "war" as the US does.

Astonishing? Not so much

It's not astonishing, because it's not at all surprising.

Kevin Drum: "This is truly remarkable. FEMA was a fine organization for eight years under Bill Clinton, widely recognized as one of the best run agencies in the federal government. But after a mere five years of George Bush's stewardship there's now a bipartisan consensus that it's so rundown that the only choice is to get rid of it and build a completely new agency in its place. Astonishing."

Bottom line: According to the hacks that have purposefully destroyed FEMA from the safe confines of the political machine otherwise known as The Department of Homeland Security, there's no place for 2 agencies that have virtually the same mission. The problem? In order to create DHS, they had to coopt FEMA's mission. Essentially making DHS an enormous duplication of other Federal Agency missions, with very little value added, especially when viewed under the lens of 'bang for the taxpayer buck'. Rather than 'dismantle FEMA and build a new Agency', Congress should disband DHS, restore FEMA's independence and authorities (since DHS has shown they can't capably handle the authorities they've coopted from FEMA), require by Executive Order that all Federal Agencies who were absorbed into DHS renew their sense of security awareness but allow them to set their own priorities, and force the administration to accept and appreciate dissenting viewpoints to help them make wise policy decisions (which, frankly, lies at the heart of how this administration has used DHS and fully explains DHS's war on FEMA).

excerpts from live discussion with Dana Priest

today at WashingtonPost.com Baton Rouge, La.: Given the new information we've learned via the EU about the (lack of) secret prisons, shouldn't the Pulitzer (and the monetary prize accompanying it) be returned, or at least held in escrow, until the truth is finally determined?

Dana Priest: You've grossly misread the stories. I suggest going to the newspapers today, which carried stories about the status of the investigations. But I would also say that I will be very surprised if the EU commissions find evidence of the prisons. The governments in Europe are not cooperating in the investigations--no surprise--so they will have to develop their own sources, which is not likely.

~ Indianapolis, Ind.: Bill Bennett told Wolf Blitzer the other day that you should be arrested for your story about secret prisons. ...How do you respond to people that are saying you should be arrested? Dana Priest: Well, first, Bennett either doesn't understand the law or is purposefully distorting it. He keeps saying that it is illegal to publish secrets. It is not. There is a category of secrets that is illegal to publish -- names of covert operatives, certain signal intelligence and nuclear secrets -- but even with these, prosecution is possible only under certain circumstances. Beyond that though, he seems to be of the camp that the government and only the government should decide what the public should know in the area of national security. In this sense, his views run contrary to the framers of the Constitution who believed a free press was essential to maintaining not just a democracy, but a strong, vibrant democracy in which major policy is questions are debated in the open. ~ Annapolis, Md.: I am a very right wing type. I salute you for improving the security of our great nation by not allowing stupidity to hide behind a classified label.

Dana Priest: From the great state of Maryland...

~

Wilmington, N.C.: Are you allowed to share the admin's stated rationale for the secrecy of the prisons you wrote about? I just can't figure the difference between secret and overt facilities as far as the effect of the enemy's knowledge of their existence. I can understand the desire to avoid the revulsion of American (and location country) citizens and their resulting opposition, but, in a democracy, should we not expect information on what is done in our names?

Dana Priest: Sure, and we did so in the original article. The administration asked us not to name the countries for two reasons: first, those countries might be subject to terrorist retaliation. Second, that those countries might decide to cease cooperating with the US on other counterterrorist operations. Len Downie, the executive editor, then decided not to name any countries but to give a regional description (Eastern Europe) and include the fact that they are democracies (important because, as countries trying to live under the rule of law, these black site are illegal under their own laws).

~

Tallahassee, Fla.: Isn't the real reason to have secret prisons to hide the identity of the PRISONERS? What is being written about the illegal detention of European citizens?

Dana Priest: In part. But they were also set up to allow the CIA total control over the interrogation of these particular prisoners. As for the detention of European citizens, there are several active investigations under way. The most advanced is that of Khalid al Masri a naturalized German citizen. The CIA is using the State Secrets Act to avoid answering any questions at all about the case, even though his claims of being abducted by the CIA and wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan are being confirmed by German investigators, apologized for in private by Secretary of State Rice, and confirmed by my sources in a long story I wrote about it last year.

Specter Threatens to Block NSA Funds

AP via The Washington Post:

WASHINGTON -- Noting that Congress holds the power of the purse, a frustrated Senate chairman threatened to try to block money for President Bush's domestic wiretapping program.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Thursday he delivered a message to Bush that cut to the heart of the debate over executive power.

"I made the point that the president doesn't have a blank check," Specter said about their meeting Wednesday. "He didn't choose to engage me on that point."

Without a pledge from Bush to provide more information on the surveillance program, Specter filed an amendment to a spending bill Thursday that amounted to a warning to the White House.

The amendment would enact a "prohibition on use of funds for domestic electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes unless Congress is kept fully and currently informed."

Specter also said he would turn the amendment into a bill and hold hearings.

"Institutionally, the presidency is walking all over Congress at the moment," Specter said. "If we are to maintain our institutional prerogative, that may be the only way we can do it."

Specter made clear that, for now, the threat was just that.

"I'm not prepared to call for the withholding of funds," he told reporters later.

"But I think that it is important to elevate the public consciousness as to what is going on," Specter said. "The four hearings we have had and the way the matter is drifting, in my view, is insufficient to safeguard civil liberties."

The move got the White House's attention, but not its immediate cooperation. Bush has insisted that the program falls within his authority and has refused to allow Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other officials to answer many of Specter's questions.

"The appropriate members of Congress have been and continue to be informed with respect to the Terrorist Surveillance Program," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

"The administration remains confident that a majority of members of Congress continue to recognize the importance of protecting Americans through lawful intelligence activities directed at terrorists," Perino said.

Specter said he hoped to jolt the public's awareness and "an inert Congress ... which has not stood up to the executive branch."

"You have a Congress which candidly is more concerned about re-election and fundraising and who controls the House and the Senate than about asserting constitutional prerogatives," Specter said. "That's not the way it ought to be. These are matters which require some active congressional action and that's what I'm looking toward."

For now, Specter said he will not bother having Gonzales return to the committee "because he won't tell us anything."

Threatening to withhold money from the wiretapping program is not unprecedented.

Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee tried to attach an amendment to the 2007 intelligence authorization bill to withhold money from the National Security Agency if the White House did not disclose information about the cost of the warrantless surveillance program.

The figure was given to a select group of members who have been briefed more fully on the NSA program, and is classified.

it was

ALL OF THEM

the story of Maher Arar

US Eastern NY District Court of Appeals: Maher Arar vs [9 American officials] (.pdf)

CRS on Rendition...

c/o FAS: "Renditions: Constraints Imposed by Laws on Torture," updated April 5, 2006 (.pdf)

here here

IF CIA OFFICIALS leaked information about the agency's secret prisons to The Post's Dana Priest, then the American public owes them a debt of gratitude. [WaPo: Bad Targeting]

"declaring war at home on the values they profess to be promoting abroad"

mediabistro.com: FishBowlDC "Whatever the reason, I worry that we're not as worried as we should be. No president likes reporters sniffing after his secrets, but most come to realize that accountability is the price of power in our democracy. Some officials in this administration, and their more vociferous cheerleaders, seem to have a special animus towards reporters doing their jobs. There's sometimes a vindictive tone in way they talk about dragging reporters before grand juries and in the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public's business risk being branded traitors. I don't know how far action will follow rhetoric, but some days it sounds like the administration is declaring war at home on the values they profess to be promoting abroad."

sleep tight

500 al-Qaida sympathizers have been released by our Saudi friends

new additon to the blogroll

a nicely-designed blog... check it out: Empires Fall

Downie speaks on firing of Mary McCarthy

E&P: "...as a general principle, obviously I am opposed to criminalizing the dissemination of government information to the press." ~ "The reporting that Dana did was very important accountability reporting about how the CIA and the rest of the U.S. government have been conducting the war on terror," Downie said. "Whether or not the actions of the CIA or other agencies have interfered with anyone's civil liberties is important information for Americans to know and is an important part of our jobs."

Bush's values bring governance reminiscent of Nixon era

Chicago Sun-Times: In 2001, I retired from the federal government after 36 years. I worked in every presidential administration from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush. From the Nixon presidency on, my work involved conducting studies of federal agency personnel systems, which gave me insight into the effects of presidential values on the behavior of their appointees and on governance. Early in Bush's tenure, I was surprised to observe that the values-based behavior in this administration seemed more like that the scandal-ridden administration of Richard Nixon rather than the administration of George H.W. Bush, the president's father. More recently, as each day seems to bring a new administration scandal or another, I am reminded about the political appointee behavior that troubled me early in the Bush presidency and wonder if that behavior may have been a signal of scandal to come. The first aspect of the Bush presidency that I noted was the emphasis on secrecy. The best example of this that I personally observed was the administration of the Freedom of Information Act. From the beginning of the presidency and before 9/11, the policy was to release only information required by FOIA. This was in contrast to the Clinton presidency, which released all information except that prohibited by FOIA, but reminiscent of missing and erased tapes in the Nixon administration. The second aspect that I noticed was the attempt to gain partisan control of the bureaucracy. An early example involved the Bush transition team's attempt to obtain the names of all "Democratic" political appointees who had moved competitively into federal positions. While unstated, clearly the intention was to eliminate appointees from previous Democratic administrations who had legitimately obtained positions through the competitive merit system. Fortunately, nonpartisan staff in the Office of Personnel Management eventually persuaded the Bush transition team that this was a bad idea politically since such appointees came from both parties, the number of appointees was small and the legitimacy of the appointments had already been extensively reviewed by both the Office of Personnel Management and the General Accounting Office. Spin control and the elimination of opposing perspectives is the final aspect in my reflections. Two examples come immediately to mind. The first example occurred during the week of Jan. 21, 2001. Almost overnight, every federal government Web site changed. Some changes were substantive (new names), others were style (colors); but all shouted that the Bush administration was different from its predecessor. This first example, while demonstrating how quickly the Internet spin control began, is relatively benign. However, more sinister examples occurred as scientific reports inconsistent with Bush administration perspectives disappeared from government Web sites (e.g., a study on condom use to prevent AIDS from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site, and a study verifying the lack of a connection between abortion and breast cancer from the Institute for National Health Web site). There are other examples, but the point of these reflections is about the relationship between values and behavior. Secrecy, partisan control of the bureaucracy and elimination of opposing perspectives are "governance values" -- values that I observed early in the Bush administration and values reminiscent of the troubled Nixon administration. These values, which are at the root of many recent scandals, manifest themselves early in a candidate's political career and pervade the elected official's governance endeavors. In recent elections we have heard a lot about "family values"; however, the focus on family values has not eliminated government scandals. To avoid future scandals, we need to replace the current election spotlight on "family values" with a spotlight on the more pertinent "governance values." After all, while most reports suggest that Saddam Hussein demonstrated strong "family values" in being a faithful husband and a loving father, his governance is what the world found reprehensible.

good stuff

yesterday's editorial cartoon from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

"deficits, divisiveness and deceit"

Bloomberg:

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean said Saturday that George Bush, his chief adviser, Karl Rove, and Republicans in Congress offer Americans ``deficits, divisiveness and deceit,'' and predicted Democrats will retake the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in November.

``Six months from today, Americans will be asked one simple question: Do you want more of the same Bush and Republican policies or do you want change?'' Dean said at the spring meeting of the Democratic National Committee in New Orleans. ``The Democratic Party offers the American people the change they are looking for.''

The Democrats chose New Orleans for their three-day meeting to emphasize, according to Dean, that ``Republicans have cut and run when it comes to rebuilding the Gulf Coast. We won't.''

Dean yesterday donned a white Hazmat suit and brown and yellow work gloves to help gut a storm-ravaged home in New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward so that it can eventually be restored.

Selectively punishing politically damaging leaks

Glenn Greenwald

BAD DAD

CNN: Man tried to sell baby for home improvements

????

LOL Billmon's a riot.

I've got a bike

you can ride it if you like, its got a basket a bell that rings and things that make it look good.

Good luck Mr. Maliki

Iraq is now yours to find a way to form a stable, effective government. Don't fuck up... the whole World is watching.

Understanding Iran: People, Politics and Power

from ResourceShelf's DocuTicker: Understanding Iran: People, Politics and Power (PDF; 355 KB) "The Foreign Policy Centre this week launched Understanding Iran: People, Politics and Power, a report authored by Hugh Barnes and Alex Bigham of the Foreign Policy Centre. The report seeks to map out the diverse and diffuse power structures in Iran, analyse some of the personalities involved, and look at the potential for civil society."

Sorry Donald You've Got To Go

Mick Smith's latest at the Times Online

The Powers That Be

Who Rules You?

George Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous President

so says John Dean in his latest column:

President George W. Bush's presidency is a disaster - one that's still unfolding. In a mid-2004 column, I argued that, at that point, Bush had already demonstrated that he possessed the least attractive and most troubling traits among those that political scientist James Dave Barber has cataloged in his study of Presidents' personality types.

Now, in early 2006, Bush has continued to sink lower in his public approval ratings, as the result of a series of events that have sapped the public of confidence in its President, and for which he is directly responsible. This Administration goes through scandals like a compulsive eater does candy bars; the wrapper is barely off one before we've moved on to another.

Currently, President Bush is busy reshuffling his staff to reinvigorate his presidency. But if Dr. Barber's work holds true for this president -- as it has for others - the hiring and firing of subordinates will not touch the core problems that have plagued Bush's tenure.

That is because the problems belong to the President - not his staff. And they are problems that go to character, not to strategy.

not good enough, Mr. Ehrlich

try again, and let this be a case study in the energy deregulation con-game. It didn't work. On that, we can all agree. Unfortunately for Republicans, as it seems to be typically the case lately, you force us all to learn these lessons the hard way, despite dire warnings specifically predicting the negative consequences of your actions. In the end, consumers pay the price for your corporate bedroom politics. BGE thanks you. Your citizens do not.

memo to Schwarzenegger

you're not going to get a Presidential disaster declaration for your own levee system until some 'event' causes the necessary damages to warrant one. Further, you're going to have to empirically show that repairing the levee system is not within the capabilities of the State of California to handle on its own. The Emergency Declaration you already received is a stretch and, franky, a gift. Take it, and don't look this gift horse in the mouth. Also, please consult with the very capable program staff within your own Office of Emergency Services before crafting silly press releases asking for the President to sidestep existing law. He really doesn't need any more instances of that. Last, be aware, that using the Army Corps of Engineers is about the most expensive option one could ever decide upon. You're on the hook for the cost-share anyway. PS: enjoy your only term.

for my nothingness nobody friend

Christopher Hitchens, Clueless in a Class by Himself

An Intelligence Summit Blog exclusive

The Presence of Saudi Nationals in the Iraqi Insurgency

enormous increase in world-wide terror attacks

Knight Ridder: Report documents major increase in terrorist incidents CSM: US intel report: Major increase in terrorist incidents

ouch

a veritable smorgasbord of explosive quotes from former NSA Director General Odom:

Former National Security Agency Director Lt. General William Odom dissected the strategic folly of the Iraq invasion and Bush Administration policies in a major policy speech at Brown University for the Watson Institute- America’s Strategic Paralysis . "The Iraq War may turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history. In a mere 18 months we went from unprecedented levels of support after 9-11..to being one of the most hated countries…Turkey used to be one of strongest pro-US regimes, now we’re so unpopular, there’s a movie playing there- Metal Storm, about a war between US and Turkey. In addition to producing faulty intel and ties to Al Qaida, Bush made preposterous claim that toppling Saddam would open the way for liberal democracy in a very short time... Misunderstanding the character of American power, he dismissed the allies as a nuisance and failed to get the UN Security Council’s sanction… We must reinforce international law, not reject and ridicule it.” “The invasion wasn’t in our interests, it was in Iran’s interest, Al Qaida’s interest. Seeing America invade must have made Iranian leaders ecstatic. Iran’s hostility to Saddam was hard to exaggerate.. Iraq is now open to Al Qaida, which it never was before- it’s easier for terrorists to kill Americans there than in the US... Neither our leaders or the mainstream media recognize the perversity of key US policies now begetting outcomes they were designed to prevent… 3 years later the US is bogged down in Iraq, pretending a Constitution has been put in place, while the civil war rages, Iran meddles, and Al Qaida swells its ranks with new recruits... We have lost our capacity to lead and are in a state of crisis- diplomatic and military.” “There isn’t anything we can do by staying there longer that will make this come out better. Every day we stay in, it gets worse and the price gets higher.” He decried the “sophomoric and silly” titled war on terrorism. “Terrorism cannot be defeated because it’s not an enemy, it’s a tactic. A war against Al Qaida is sensible and supportable, but a war against a tactic is ludicrous and hurtful… a propaganda ploy to swindle others into supporting one’s own terrorism ... and encourages prejudices against Muslims everywhere. What if we said, ‘Catholic Christian IRA hitmen’? ” “The hypocrisy is deeper than this. By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism- in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.” “Holding elections is easy, creating stable constitutional orders is difficult. Only 8-9 of 50 new democracies created since the 40’s have a constitutional system. Voting only ratifies the constitutional deal that has been agreed to by elites- people or groups with enough power- that is guns and money, to violate the rules with impunity… Voting does not cause a breakthrough… One group will win out and take them off the path to a liberal breakthrough .. Spreading illiberal democracy without Constitutionalism is a very bad idea, if we care about civil liberties. We are getting that lesson again in Hamas.” Odom called for a “great reduction in US oil consumption” and pilloried our “energy policy of no energy policy. As long as large sums of money roll into the coffers of a few Middle East states, a lot of it will leak into the hands of radical political activists. A “$2-3 a gallon tax could fund massive R+D programs for alternative fuels and generate a strong demand for greater fuel efficiency … Getting serious about nuclear power could also lessen our oil dependency.” “No government that believes radical terrorist groups in Middle East are serious threat to us would do any less on energy policy.”

more of this, please

West Point Graduates Against The War