Monday, July 31, 2006
Lebanon:
This report by veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk is of the sort rarely heard, seen or read in U.S. papers/broadcast media. The question of why that is so is hardly ever discussed...
Democracy Now! - Robert Fisk Reports From Lebanon on the Israeli Bombing of Qana
Iraq:
LA Times: Audit Finds US Hid Cost of Iraq Projects
"The U.S. agency responsible for administering $1.4 billion in reconstruction funds in Iraq has sought to hide major cost overruns on high-profile projects from Congress by engaging in questionable accounting maneuvers, according to a federal audit released late Friday.
The agency has masked budget spillovers on a children's hospital in the southern city of Basra and other facilities by hiding the expenditures in seemingly unrelated accounts, the report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction says.
Overall, the report found a 'lack of effective program management' by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which oversees U.S. reconstruction spending in Iraq and other countries.
The accounting issues are the latest in a series of problems, including fraud allegations and the soaring costs of protecting work sites and crews from attacks, that have beset the massive rebuilding effort in Iraq.
The report focuses on cost overruns and construction delays at the children's hospital, whose advocates include First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But the document also points to similar accounting irregularities on other projects, including a power station in Musayyib and an electricity project in Baghdad.
USAID has continued to list the hospital project's cost at $50 million in reports to Congress, even as its actual budget has ballooned to more than $149 million, the audit found. The discrepancy was disguised by spreading indirect costs associated with the project - such as security and transportation expenditures - to other accounts, according to the report.
As a result, 'millions of dollars in indirect costs that should have been applied to the hospital project were applied to other USAID projects, resulting in a serious misstatement of hospital project costs,' the report says. At the same time, a facility that was supposed to be finished in December is now scheduled for completion in July 2007.
A spokeswoman for USAID, an independent agency that receives overall foreign policy guidance from the State Department, could not be reached for comment..."
Frank Rich: The Peculiar Disappearance of the War in Iraq
"...CNN will surely remind us today that it is Day 19 of the Israel-Hezbollah war - now branded as Crisis in the Middle East - but you won't catch anyone saying it's Day 1,229 of the war in Iraq. On the Big Three networks' evening newscasts, the time devoted to Iraq has fallen 60 percent between 2003 and this spring, as clocked by the television monitor, the Tyndall Report. On Thursday, Brian Williams of NBC read aloud a 'shame on you' e-mail complaint from the parents of two military sons anguished that his broadcast had so little news about the war.
This is happening even as the casualties in Iraq, averaging more than 100 a day, easily surpass those in Israel and Lebanon combined. When Nouri al-Maliki, the latest Iraqi prime minister, visited Washington last week to address Congress, he too got short TV shrift - a mere five sentences about the speech on ABC's 'World News.' The networks know a rerun when they see it. Only 22 months earlier, one of Mr. Maliki's short-lived predecessors, Ayad Allawi, had come to town during the 2004 campaign to give a similarly empty Congressional address laced with White House-scripted talking points about the war's progress..."
Washington Post: Report on Pre-War Intelligence Lagging
"When angry Democrats briefly shut down the Senate last year to protest the slow pace of a congressional investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) claimed a rare victory.
Republicans called it a stunt but promised to quickly wrap up the inquiry. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is overseeing the investigation, said his report was near completion and there was no need for the fuss.
That was nine months ago..."
Meanwhile, In Italy...
Patrick Radden Keefe: Italy's Watergate By Patrick Radden Keefe
"Espionage, secrecy, and corruption: Lessons for the Bush administration..."
Insurance Company Over-confidence in Technology?
WIRED News: Pinch My Ride
"Last summer Emad Wassef walked out of a Target store in Orange County, California, to find a big space where his 2003 Lincoln Navigator had been. The 38-year-old truck driver and former reserve Los Angeles police officer did what anyone would do: He reported the theft to the cops and called his insurance company.
Two weeks later, the black SUV turned up near the Mexico border, minus its stereo, airbags, DVD player, and door panels. Wassef assumed he had a straightforward claim for around $25,000. His insurer, Chicago-based Unitrin Direct, disagreed.
Wassef’s Navigator, like half of all late-model domestic cars on the road today, is equipped with a transponder antitheft system: The ignition key is embedded with a tiny computer chip that sends a unique radio signal to the vehicle’s onboard computer. Without the signal, the car won’t start. And Wassef still had both of his keys.
The insurance company sent a forensic examiner to check out the disemboweled SUV in an impound lot. The ignition lock, mounted on the steering column, had been forcibly rotated, probably with a screwdriver. The locking lug on the steering wheel, which keeps it from being turned when the truck is not in gear, had also been damaged. But the transponder system was intact. The car could have been shifted and steered, the investigator concluded, but the engine couldn’t have been turned on. 'Since you reportedly can account for all the vehicle keys, the forensic information suggests that the loss did not occur as reported,' the company wrote to Wassef, denying his claim. The barely hidden subtext: Wassef was lying..."
This report by veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk is of the sort rarely heard, seen or read in U.S. papers/broadcast media. The question of why that is so is hardly ever discussed...
Democracy Now! - Robert Fisk Reports From Lebanon on the Israeli Bombing of Qana
Iraq:
LA Times: Audit Finds US Hid Cost of Iraq Projects
"The U.S. agency responsible for administering $1.4 billion in reconstruction funds in Iraq has sought to hide major cost overruns on high-profile projects from Congress by engaging in questionable accounting maneuvers, according to a federal audit released late Friday.
The agency has masked budget spillovers on a children's hospital in the southern city of Basra and other facilities by hiding the expenditures in seemingly unrelated accounts, the report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction says.
Overall, the report found a 'lack of effective program management' by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which oversees U.S. reconstruction spending in Iraq and other countries.
The accounting issues are the latest in a series of problems, including fraud allegations and the soaring costs of protecting work sites and crews from attacks, that have beset the massive rebuilding effort in Iraq.
The report focuses on cost overruns and construction delays at the children's hospital, whose advocates include First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But the document also points to similar accounting irregularities on other projects, including a power station in Musayyib and an electricity project in Baghdad.
USAID has continued to list the hospital project's cost at $50 million in reports to Congress, even as its actual budget has ballooned to more than $149 million, the audit found. The discrepancy was disguised by spreading indirect costs associated with the project - such as security and transportation expenditures - to other accounts, according to the report.
As a result, 'millions of dollars in indirect costs that should have been applied to the hospital project were applied to other USAID projects, resulting in a serious misstatement of hospital project costs,' the report says. At the same time, a facility that was supposed to be finished in December is now scheduled for completion in July 2007.
A spokeswoman for USAID, an independent agency that receives overall foreign policy guidance from the State Department, could not be reached for comment..."
Frank Rich: The Peculiar Disappearance of the War in Iraq
"...CNN will surely remind us today that it is Day 19 of the Israel-Hezbollah war - now branded as Crisis in the Middle East - but you won't catch anyone saying it's Day 1,229 of the war in Iraq. On the Big Three networks' evening newscasts, the time devoted to Iraq has fallen 60 percent between 2003 and this spring, as clocked by the television monitor, the Tyndall Report. On Thursday, Brian Williams of NBC read aloud a 'shame on you' e-mail complaint from the parents of two military sons anguished that his broadcast had so little news about the war.
This is happening even as the casualties in Iraq, averaging more than 100 a day, easily surpass those in Israel and Lebanon combined. When Nouri al-Maliki, the latest Iraqi prime minister, visited Washington last week to address Congress, he too got short TV shrift - a mere five sentences about the speech on ABC's 'World News.' The networks know a rerun when they see it. Only 22 months earlier, one of Mr. Maliki's short-lived predecessors, Ayad Allawi, had come to town during the 2004 campaign to give a similarly empty Congressional address laced with White House-scripted talking points about the war's progress..."
Washington Post: Report on Pre-War Intelligence Lagging
"When angry Democrats briefly shut down the Senate last year to protest the slow pace of a congressional investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) claimed a rare victory.
Republicans called it a stunt but promised to quickly wrap up the inquiry. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is overseeing the investigation, said his report was near completion and there was no need for the fuss.
That was nine months ago..."
Meanwhile, In Italy...
Patrick Radden Keefe: Italy's Watergate By Patrick Radden Keefe
"Espionage, secrecy, and corruption: Lessons for the Bush administration..."
Insurance Company Over-confidence in Technology?
WIRED News: Pinch My Ride
"Last summer Emad Wassef walked out of a Target store in Orange County, California, to find a big space where his 2003 Lincoln Navigator had been. The 38-year-old truck driver and former reserve Los Angeles police officer did what anyone would do: He reported the theft to the cops and called his insurance company.
Two weeks later, the black SUV turned up near the Mexico border, minus its stereo, airbags, DVD player, and door panels. Wassef assumed he had a straightforward claim for around $25,000. His insurer, Chicago-based Unitrin Direct, disagreed.
Wassef’s Navigator, like half of all late-model domestic cars on the road today, is equipped with a transponder antitheft system: The ignition key is embedded with a tiny computer chip that sends a unique radio signal to the vehicle’s onboard computer. Without the signal, the car won’t start. And Wassef still had both of his keys.
The insurance company sent a forensic examiner to check out the disemboweled SUV in an impound lot. The ignition lock, mounted on the steering column, had been forcibly rotated, probably with a screwdriver. The locking lug on the steering wheel, which keeps it from being turned when the truck is not in gear, had also been damaged. But the transponder system was intact. The car could have been shifted and steered, the investigator concluded, but the engine couldn’t have been turned on. 'Since you reportedly can account for all the vehicle keys, the forensic information suggests that the loss did not occur as reported,' the company wrote to Wassef, denying his claim. The barely hidden subtext: Wassef was lying..."
The Rule Of Law:
Sen. Edward Kennedy: Roberts and Alito Misled Us
"...Now that the votes are in from their first term, we can see plainly the agenda that Roberts and Alito sought to conceal from the committee. Our new justices consistently voted to erode civil liberties, decrease the rights of minorities and limit environmental protections. At the same time, they voted to expand the power of the president, reduce restrictions on abusive police tactics and approve federal intrusion into issues traditionally governed by state law.
The confirmation process became broken because the Bush administration learned the wrong lesson from the failed Bork nomination and decided it could still nominate extremists as long as their views were hidden. To that end, it insisted that the Senate confine its inquiry largely to its nominees' personal qualities.
The administration's tactics succeeded in turning the confirmation hearings for Roberts and Alito into a sham. Many Republican senators used their time to praise, rather than probe, the nominees. Coached by the administration, the nominees declined to answer critical questions. When pressed on issues such as civil rights and executive power, Roberts and Alito responded with earnest assurances that they would not bring an ideological agenda to the bench.
After confirmation, we saw an entirely different Roberts and Alito - both partisans ready and willing to tilt the court away from the mainstream. They voted together in 91 percent of all cases and 88 percent of non-unanimous cases - more than any other two justices..."
Sen. Edward Kennedy: Roberts and Alito Misled Us
"...Now that the votes are in from their first term, we can see plainly the agenda that Roberts and Alito sought to conceal from the committee. Our new justices consistently voted to erode civil liberties, decrease the rights of minorities and limit environmental protections. At the same time, they voted to expand the power of the president, reduce restrictions on abusive police tactics and approve federal intrusion into issues traditionally governed by state law.
The confirmation process became broken because the Bush administration learned the wrong lesson from the failed Bork nomination and decided it could still nominate extremists as long as their views were hidden. To that end, it insisted that the Senate confine its inquiry largely to its nominees' personal qualities.
The administration's tactics succeeded in turning the confirmation hearings for Roberts and Alito into a sham. Many Republican senators used their time to praise, rather than probe, the nominees. Coached by the administration, the nominees declined to answer critical questions. When pressed on issues such as civil rights and executive power, Roberts and Alito responded with earnest assurances that they would not bring an ideological agenda to the bench.
After confirmation, we saw an entirely different Roberts and Alito - both partisans ready and willing to tilt the court away from the mainstream. They voted together in 91 percent of all cases and 88 percent of non-unanimous cases - more than any other two justices..."
Sunday, July 30, 2006
How Attacking Iraq Is Step One In A Larger Agenda:
James Bamford: Iran: The Next War
"Even before the bombs fell on Baghdad, a group of senior Pentagon officials were plotting to invade another country. Their covert campaign once again relied on false intelligence and shady allies. But this time, the target was Iran..."
James Bamford: Iran: The Next War
"Even before the bombs fell on Baghdad, a group of senior Pentagon officials were plotting to invade another country. Their covert campaign once again relied on false intelligence and shady allies. But this time, the target was Iran..."
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Rights? They'll Have Only The Rights The Decider Allows Them To
Detaining people indefinitely after one man designates them to be worthy of suspicion, is highly dangerous. In fact, it sounds positively dictatorial.
AP: Bush Bids for Sweeping Detention Power
"U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.
A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.
Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.
Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.
According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all 'enemy combatants' until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone 'engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute.'
Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda..."
Detaining people indefinitely after one man designates them to be worthy of suspicion, is highly dangerous. In fact, it sounds positively dictatorial.
AP: Bush Bids for Sweeping Detention Power
"U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.
A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.
Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made.
Senior officials are expected to discuss a final proposal before the Senate Armed Services Committee next Wednesday.
According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all 'enemy combatants' until hostilities cease. The bill defines enemy combatants as anyone 'engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute.'
Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda..."
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
A Passion For War:
Now why do you think this goes unreported in the NY Times or on the network evening news?
Wayne Madsen: The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was planned between top Israeli officials and members of the Bush administration.
"The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was planned between top Israeli officials and members of the Bush administration. On June 17 and 18, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Likud Knesset member Natan Sharansky met with Vice President Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute conference in Beaver Creek, Colorado. There, the impending Israeli invasions of both Gaza and Lebanon were discussed. After receiving Cheney's full backing for the invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu flew back to Israel and participated in a special 'Ex-Prime Ministers' meeting, in which he conveyed the Bush administration's support for the carrying out of the 'Clean Break' policy -- the trashing of all past Middle East peace accords, including Oslo. Present at the meeting, in addition to Netanyahu, were current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir is very old and suffers from dementia and Ariel Sharon remains in a coma after a series of strokes.
After the AEI meeting, Sharansky, who has the ear of Bush, met with the Heritage Foundation in Washington and then attended a June 29 seminar at Philadelphia's Main Line Haverford School sponsored by the Middle East Forum led by Daniel Pipes. Sharansky appeared with Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum who this past Thursday was beating the war drums against Syria, Iran, and 'Islamo-fascism' in a fiery speech at the National Press Club attended by a cheering section composed of members of the neocon Israel Project, on whose board Santorum serves along with Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Virginia GOP Rep. Tom Davis.
Our Washington sources claim that the U.S.-supported invasions of Gaza and Lebanon and the impending attacks on Syria and Iran represent the suspected 'event' predicted to take place prior to the November election in the United States and is an attempt to rally the American public around the Bush-Cheney regime during a time of wider war."
Read the 1996 'Clean Break' policy study/recommendation here, from the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (publisher).
Neoconservatives have had their hooks into oilmen George Bush and Dick Cheney for a while. It's too bad one has to read the British press to get a clue. Did Sharansky actually encourage the Decider In Chief to read?
Now, obviously, it's not a difficult feat to convince a dillusional man that he'll be remembered for altering the course of history by 'spreading democracy,' if he starts a war. The trick is not to let him know that he's actually serving as someone else's bully. A capable confidence man like Sharansky is in his element with men who are ruled by fear, and The Decider is no exception. Wolfowitz and Perle are two other charlatans who already have done irreparable harm to the reputation of the United States. One of the most memorable scenes from the night the Iraq War began in 2003 was the congratulatory back-slapping, grins, and hand-shakes between SecDef Rumsfeld and his Deputy Wolfowitz in the wings of a Pentagon press conference. It's as if they were saying "Can you believe we did it? I never thought they'd actually buy it!" The American voter bought the manufactured WMD intel that provided the case for war, all half a trillion dollars of it, and they don't even realize how much worse it's going to get with these monsters at the helm.
Now why do you think this goes unreported in the NY Times or on the network evening news?
Wayne Madsen: The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was planned between top Israeli officials and members of the Bush administration.
"The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was planned between top Israeli officials and members of the Bush administration. On June 17 and 18, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Likud Knesset member Natan Sharansky met with Vice President Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute conference in Beaver Creek, Colorado. There, the impending Israeli invasions of both Gaza and Lebanon were discussed. After receiving Cheney's full backing for the invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu flew back to Israel and participated in a special 'Ex-Prime Ministers' meeting, in which he conveyed the Bush administration's support for the carrying out of the 'Clean Break' policy -- the trashing of all past Middle East peace accords, including Oslo. Present at the meeting, in addition to Netanyahu, were current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir is very old and suffers from dementia and Ariel Sharon remains in a coma after a series of strokes.
After the AEI meeting, Sharansky, who has the ear of Bush, met with the Heritage Foundation in Washington and then attended a June 29 seminar at Philadelphia's Main Line Haverford School sponsored by the Middle East Forum led by Daniel Pipes. Sharansky appeared with Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum who this past Thursday was beating the war drums against Syria, Iran, and 'Islamo-fascism' in a fiery speech at the National Press Club attended by a cheering section composed of members of the neocon Israel Project, on whose board Santorum serves along with Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Virginia GOP Rep. Tom Davis.
Our Washington sources claim that the U.S.-supported invasions of Gaza and Lebanon and the impending attacks on Syria and Iran represent the suspected 'event' predicted to take place prior to the November election in the United States and is an attempt to rally the American public around the Bush-Cheney regime during a time of wider war."
Read the 1996 'Clean Break' policy study/recommendation here, from the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies (publisher).
Neoconservatives have had their hooks into oilmen George Bush and Dick Cheney for a while. It's too bad one has to read the British press to get a clue. Did Sharansky actually encourage the Decider In Chief to read?
Now, obviously, it's not a difficult feat to convince a dillusional man that he'll be remembered for altering the course of history by 'spreading democracy,' if he starts a war. The trick is not to let him know that he's actually serving as someone else's bully. A capable confidence man like Sharansky is in his element with men who are ruled by fear, and The Decider is no exception. Wolfowitz and Perle are two other charlatans who already have done irreparable harm to the reputation of the United States. One of the most memorable scenes from the night the Iraq War began in 2003 was the congratulatory back-slapping, grins, and hand-shakes between SecDef Rumsfeld and his Deputy Wolfowitz in the wings of a Pentagon press conference. It's as if they were saying "Can you believe we did it? I never thought they'd actually buy it!" The American voter bought the manufactured WMD intel that provided the case for war, all half a trillion dollars of it, and they don't even realize how much worse it's going to get with these monsters at the helm.
Energy Politics:
This is interesting, but can it survive in a carbon-dollar-lubricated economy and political system like the U.S.?
Popular Science Blog: Can the Sun Keep You Cool?
"...Instead of using expensive photovoltaic cells to convert solar radiation to electricity directly, Matteran’s solution uses far-cheaper thermal-collection technology to heat a synthetic fluid with a very low boiling point (around 58°F), creating enough steam to drive a specially designed turbine. And although a fluid-circuit system converting heat into electricity is nothing new, Matteran’s innovative solution increases the system’s efficiency to a point where small-scale applications make economic sense (see the animation on the company’s Web site for a more thorough explanation).
So far, Matteran has created only small amounts of refrigeration, but the technology is in place to take the next step, creating a unit with the equivalent cooling of a standard window-mounted A/C that is powered entirely by the sun’s heat—something I don’t think our carbon-choked planet will be running out of anytime soon."
This is interesting, but can it survive in a carbon-dollar-lubricated economy and political system like the U.S.?
Popular Science Blog: Can the Sun Keep You Cool?
"...Instead of using expensive photovoltaic cells to convert solar radiation to electricity directly, Matteran’s solution uses far-cheaper thermal-collection technology to heat a synthetic fluid with a very low boiling point (around 58°F), creating enough steam to drive a specially designed turbine. And although a fluid-circuit system converting heat into electricity is nothing new, Matteran’s innovative solution increases the system’s efficiency to a point where small-scale applications make economic sense (see the animation on the company’s Web site for a more thorough explanation).
So far, Matteran has created only small amounts of refrigeration, but the technology is in place to take the next step, creating a unit with the equivalent cooling of a standard window-mounted A/C that is powered entirely by the sun’s heat—something I don’t think our carbon-choked planet will be running out of anytime soon."
Tax Policy, By Administrative Fiat, When Legislation Won't Pass:
NY Times: I.R.S. to Cut Tax Auditors
"The federal government is moving to eliminate the jobs of nearly half of the lawyers at the Internal Revenue Service who audit tax returns of some of the wealthiest Americans, specifically those who are subject to gift and estate taxes when they transfer parts of their fortunes to their children and others.
The administration plans to cut the jobs of 157 of the agency’s 345 estate tax lawyers, plus 17 support personnel, in less than 70 days. Kevin Brown, an I.R.S. deputy commissioner, confirmed the cuts after The New York Times was given internal documents by people inside the I.R.S. who oppose them.
The Bush administration has passed measures that reduce the number of Americans who are subject to the estate tax — which opponents refer to as the 'death tax' — but has failed in its efforts to eliminate the tax entirely. Mr. Brown said in a telephone interview Friday that he had ordered the staff cuts because far fewer people were obliged to pay estate taxes under President Bush’s legislation.
But six I.R.S. estate tax lawyers whose jobs are likely to be eliminated said in interviews that the cuts were just the latest moves behind the scenes at the I.R.S. to shield people with political connections and complex tax-avoidance devices from thorough audits.
Sharyn Phillips, a veteran I.R.S. estate tax lawyer in Manhattan, called the cuts a 'back-door way for the Bush administration to achieve what it cannot get from Congress, which is repeal of the estate tax,'..."
NY Times: I.R.S. to Cut Tax Auditors
"The federal government is moving to eliminate the jobs of nearly half of the lawyers at the Internal Revenue Service who audit tax returns of some of the wealthiest Americans, specifically those who are subject to gift and estate taxes when they transfer parts of their fortunes to their children and others.
The administration plans to cut the jobs of 157 of the agency’s 345 estate tax lawyers, plus 17 support personnel, in less than 70 days. Kevin Brown, an I.R.S. deputy commissioner, confirmed the cuts after The New York Times was given internal documents by people inside the I.R.S. who oppose them.
The Bush administration has passed measures that reduce the number of Americans who are subject to the estate tax — which opponents refer to as the 'death tax' — but has failed in its efforts to eliminate the tax entirely. Mr. Brown said in a telephone interview Friday that he had ordered the staff cuts because far fewer people were obliged to pay estate taxes under President Bush’s legislation.
But six I.R.S. estate tax lawyers whose jobs are likely to be eliminated said in interviews that the cuts were just the latest moves behind the scenes at the I.R.S. to shield people with political connections and complex tax-avoidance devices from thorough audits.
Sharyn Phillips, a veteran I.R.S. estate tax lawyer in Manhattan, called the cuts a 'back-door way for the Bush administration to achieve what it cannot get from Congress, which is repeal of the estate tax,'..."
Monday, July 24, 2006
Our (Fleeting) Constitutional Rights:
Jane Mayer: The Hidden Power
"...Most Americans, even those who follow politics closely, have probably never heard of Addington. But current and former Administration officials say that he has played a central role in shaping the Administration’s legal strategy for the war on terror. Known as the New Paradigm, this strategy rests on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars share—namely, that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it. Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance have been set aside. A former high-ranking Administration lawyer who worked extensively on national-security issues said that the Administration’s legal positions were, to a remarkable degree, 'all Addington.' Another lawyer, Richard L. Shiffrin, who until 2003 was the Pentagon’s deputy general counsel for intelligence, said that Addington was 'an unopposable force,'...
...Bruce Fein, a Republican legal activist, who voted for Bush in both Presidential elections, and who served as associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department, said that Addington and other Presidential legal advisers had 'staked out powers that are a universe beyond any other Administration. This President has made claims that are really quite alarming. He’s said that there are no restraints on his ability, as he sees it, to collect intelligence, to open mail, to commit torture, and to use electronic surveillance. If you used the President’s reasoning, you could shut down Congress for leaking too much. His war powers allow him to declare anyone an illegal combatant. All the world’s a battlefield—according to this view, he could kill someone in Lafayette Park if he wants! It’s got the sense of Louis XIV: ‘I am the State,’ '..."
Jane Mayer: The Hidden Power
"...Most Americans, even those who follow politics closely, have probably never heard of Addington. But current and former Administration officials say that he has played a central role in shaping the Administration’s legal strategy for the war on terror. Known as the New Paradigm, this strategy rests on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars share—namely, that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it. Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention, and warrantless surveillance have been set aside. A former high-ranking Administration lawyer who worked extensively on national-security issues said that the Administration’s legal positions were, to a remarkable degree, 'all Addington.' Another lawyer, Richard L. Shiffrin, who until 2003 was the Pentagon’s deputy general counsel for intelligence, said that Addington was 'an unopposable force,'...
...Bruce Fein, a Republican legal activist, who voted for Bush in both Presidential elections, and who served as associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department, said that Addington and other Presidential legal advisers had 'staked out powers that are a universe beyond any other Administration. This President has made claims that are really quite alarming. He’s said that there are no restraints on his ability, as he sees it, to collect intelligence, to open mail, to commit torture, and to use electronic surveillance. If you used the President’s reasoning, you could shut down Congress for leaking too much. His war powers allow him to declare anyone an illegal combatant. All the world’s a battlefield—according to this view, he could kill someone in Lafayette Park if he wants! It’s got the sense of Louis XIV: ‘I am the State,’ '..."
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Executive Power:
John Dean: The Authoritarian Streak in the Conservative Movement
"The despotic personality types we see in the Bush White House have their origins in the amoral politics practiced by the low-lifes of the Nixon administration..."
Iraq:
To hear the Bush Administration extol the virtues of the 'culture of life' in the stem-cell debate and undefined 'freedom' in foreign policy rings especially hollow in light of its facination with the culture of never-ending war, death, and empire-building.
NY Times: UN: Over 3,000 Iraqi Civilians Killed in June
"An average of more than 100 civilians per day were killed in Iraq last month, the highest monthly tally of violent deaths since the fall of Baghdad, the United Nations reported today.
The death toll, drawn from Iraqi government agencies, was the most precise measurement of civilian deaths provided by any government organization since the invasion and represented a dramatic increase over daily media reports.
United Nations officials also said that the number of violent deaths had been steadily increasing since at least last summer. In the first six months of this year, the civilian death toll jumped more than 77 percent, from 1,778 in January to 3,149 in June, the organization said.
This sharp upward trend reflected the dire security situation in Iraq as sectarian violence has worsened and Iraqi and American government forces have been powerless to stop it..."
Reuters: Report: US Torture Widespread in Iraq
"Iraqi detainees were routinely subjected to beatings, sleep deprivation, stress positions and other forms of abuse by U.S. interrogators, according to a Human Rights Watch report released on Sunday that offers first-hand accounts from three former soldiers.
The U.S.-based watchdog group said its report discredits government arguments casting mistreatment of detainees as the aberrant and unauthorized work of a few personnel.
It included accounts by former soldiers who said detainees were regularly subjected to beatings, sleep deprivation and stress positions -- practices that started to come to light two years ago when pictures of physical abuse and sexual humiliation at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison surfaced.
'These accounts rebut U.S. government claims that torture and abuse in Iraq was unauthorized and exceptional -- on the contrary, it was condoned and commonly used,' said John Sifton, author of the report and the group's senior researcher on terrorism and counter-terrorism..."
Energy Politics:
The Detroit News: Toyota also depends on gas guzzlers
"New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman created a stir in Detroit in late May when he wrote that General Motors was underwriting Middle East terrorism by building gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles. By contrast, Friedman argued, Toyota builds 'patriotic,' fuel-efficient cars, which 'is why Toyota today is worth $198.9 billion and GM $15.8 billion.'
'Is there a company more dangerous to America's future than General Motors?' Friedman wrote. 'Surely, the sooner this company gets taken over by Toyota, the better off our country will be.'
Not likely. A federal report issued this week indicates that when it comes to gas mileage, Toyota looks more and more like GM, according to Environmental Protection Agency figures.
The fleet of vehicles sold by General Motors now averages 20.5 miles per gallon -- about the same as it has every year since 1985. Toyota's number was slightly higher -- 23.8 mpg -- but that was down from its 1985 figure of nearly 26 mpg. Other Japanese automakers show a similar trend.
Green activist and Friedman ally Dan Becker of the Sierra Club lamented Toyota's descent into sin. Friedman has yet to weigh in..."
John Dean: The Authoritarian Streak in the Conservative Movement
"The despotic personality types we see in the Bush White House have their origins in the amoral politics practiced by the low-lifes of the Nixon administration..."
Iraq:
To hear the Bush Administration extol the virtues of the 'culture of life' in the stem-cell debate and undefined 'freedom' in foreign policy rings especially hollow in light of its facination with the culture of never-ending war, death, and empire-building.
NY Times: UN: Over 3,000 Iraqi Civilians Killed in June
"An average of more than 100 civilians per day were killed in Iraq last month, the highest monthly tally of violent deaths since the fall of Baghdad, the United Nations reported today.
The death toll, drawn from Iraqi government agencies, was the most precise measurement of civilian deaths provided by any government organization since the invasion and represented a dramatic increase over daily media reports.
United Nations officials also said that the number of violent deaths had been steadily increasing since at least last summer. In the first six months of this year, the civilian death toll jumped more than 77 percent, from 1,778 in January to 3,149 in June, the organization said.
This sharp upward trend reflected the dire security situation in Iraq as sectarian violence has worsened and Iraqi and American government forces have been powerless to stop it..."
Reuters: Report: US Torture Widespread in Iraq
"Iraqi detainees were routinely subjected to beatings, sleep deprivation, stress positions and other forms of abuse by U.S. interrogators, according to a Human Rights Watch report released on Sunday that offers first-hand accounts from three former soldiers.
The U.S.-based watchdog group said its report discredits government arguments casting mistreatment of detainees as the aberrant and unauthorized work of a few personnel.
It included accounts by former soldiers who said detainees were regularly subjected to beatings, sleep deprivation and stress positions -- practices that started to come to light two years ago when pictures of physical abuse and sexual humiliation at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison surfaced.
'These accounts rebut U.S. government claims that torture and abuse in Iraq was unauthorized and exceptional -- on the contrary, it was condoned and commonly used,' said John Sifton, author of the report and the group's senior researcher on terrorism and counter-terrorism..."
Energy Politics:
The Detroit News: Toyota also depends on gas guzzlers
"New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman created a stir in Detroit in late May when he wrote that General Motors was underwriting Middle East terrorism by building gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles. By contrast, Friedman argued, Toyota builds 'patriotic,' fuel-efficient cars, which 'is why Toyota today is worth $198.9 billion and GM $15.8 billion.'
'Is there a company more dangerous to America's future than General Motors?' Friedman wrote. 'Surely, the sooner this company gets taken over by Toyota, the better off our country will be.'
Not likely. A federal report issued this week indicates that when it comes to gas mileage, Toyota looks more and more like GM, according to Environmental Protection Agency figures.
The fleet of vehicles sold by General Motors now averages 20.5 miles per gallon -- about the same as it has every year since 1985. Toyota's number was slightly higher -- 23.8 mpg -- but that was down from its 1985 figure of nearly 26 mpg. Other Japanese automakers show a similar trend.
Green activist and Friedman ally Dan Becker of the Sierra Club lamented Toyota's descent into sin. Friedman has yet to weigh in..."
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Everywhere Is War:
The Guardian (UK): Afghanistan close to anarchy, warns general
"The most senior British military commander in Afghanistan yesterday described the situation in the country as 'close to anarchy' with feuding foreign agencies and unethical private security companies compounding problems caused by local corruption.
The stark warning came from Lieutenant General David Richards, head of NATO's international security force in Afghanistan, who warned that western forces there were short of equipment and were 'running out of time' if they were going to meet the expectations of the Afghan people.
The assumption within NATO countries had been that the environment in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Taliban in 2002 would be benign, Gen Richards said. 'That is clearly not the case,' he said yesterday. He referred to disputes between tribes crossing the border with Pakistan, and divisions between religious and secular factions cynically manipulated by 'anarcho-warlords.'
Corrupt local officials were fuelling the problem and NATO's provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan were sending out conflicting signals, Gen Richards told a conference at the Royal United Services Institute in London. 'The situation is close to anarchy,' he said, referring in particular to what he called 'the lack of unity between different agencies'.
He described 'poorly regulated private security companies' as unethical and 'all too ready to discharge firearms,'..."
NY Times: Bush Admin. Rushing More Bombs to Israel
"The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.
The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran's efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.
The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel's request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers, and as an indication that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike..."
The Guardian (UK): Afghanistan close to anarchy, warns general
"The most senior British military commander in Afghanistan yesterday described the situation in the country as 'close to anarchy' with feuding foreign agencies and unethical private security companies compounding problems caused by local corruption.
The stark warning came from Lieutenant General David Richards, head of NATO's international security force in Afghanistan, who warned that western forces there were short of equipment and were 'running out of time' if they were going to meet the expectations of the Afghan people.
The assumption within NATO countries had been that the environment in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Taliban in 2002 would be benign, Gen Richards said. 'That is clearly not the case,' he said yesterday. He referred to disputes between tribes crossing the border with Pakistan, and divisions between religious and secular factions cynically manipulated by 'anarcho-warlords.'
Corrupt local officials were fuelling the problem and NATO's provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan were sending out conflicting signals, Gen Richards told a conference at the Royal United Services Institute in London. 'The situation is close to anarchy,' he said, referring in particular to what he called 'the lack of unity between different agencies'.
He described 'poorly regulated private security companies' as unethical and 'all too ready to discharge firearms,'..."
NY Times: Bush Admin. Rushing More Bombs to Israel
"The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.
The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran's efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.
The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel's request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers, and as an indication that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike..."
Friday, July 21, 2006
Bush At the NAACP:
Greg Palast: They Don’t Call it The “White” House for Nothing
"...Coming in right behind God and Faith, other big mentions in the First Home Boy’s rap included: The Voting Rights Act, his family’s “commitment to civil rights,” the “death tax,” rebuilding New Orleans and “public school choice” and “soft bigotry.”
As the philosopher Aretha Franklin once said, “Who’s zoomin’ who?”
Let’s take it one point at a time..."
Greg Palast: They Don’t Call it The “White” House for Nothing
"...Coming in right behind God and Faith, other big mentions in the First Home Boy’s rap included: The Voting Rights Act, his family’s “commitment to civil rights,” the “death tax,” rebuilding New Orleans and “public school choice” and “soft bigotry.”
As the philosopher Aretha Franklin once said, “Who’s zoomin’ who?”
Let’s take it one point at a time..."
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Business Ethics:
...or the lack thereof.
NY Times: Hospital Chiefs Get Paid for Advice on Selling
"One recent sun-splashed afternoon, executives who run some of America’s leading nonprofit hospitals met at a stately Colorado resort for an unusual mission: to advise companies confidentially on how best to sell their drugs, medical devices and financial services to hospitals.
The hospital executives were rewarded with more than a chance to indulge in a 'harmonic' hot stone massage or mountainside golf.
They were also paid thousands of dollars for the advice they offered to dozens of companies, like Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup. The hospital officials and their spouses received a free trip to the luxury resort, where they could join the Morgan Stanley Tennis Tournament or the GE Healthcare Barbecue. All of this came courtesy of the Healthcare Research and Development Institute, a for-profit company that is owned by about three dozen hospital executives, but underwritten by 40 or so of its handpicked corporate members, all suppliers to hospitals.
While the financial relationship between doctors and drug companies has come under intense scrutiny, much less is known about how hospital executives interact with companies that sell products as varied as syringes and financial services. In the case of the Healthcare Research and Development Institute, executives benefit from payments made by companies their hospitals do business with..."
...or the lack thereof.
NY Times: Hospital Chiefs Get Paid for Advice on Selling
"One recent sun-splashed afternoon, executives who run some of America’s leading nonprofit hospitals met at a stately Colorado resort for an unusual mission: to advise companies confidentially on how best to sell their drugs, medical devices and financial services to hospitals.
The hospital executives were rewarded with more than a chance to indulge in a 'harmonic' hot stone massage or mountainside golf.
They were also paid thousands of dollars for the advice they offered to dozens of companies, like Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup. The hospital officials and their spouses received a free trip to the luxury resort, where they could join the Morgan Stanley Tennis Tournament or the GE Healthcare Barbecue. All of this came courtesy of the Healthcare Research and Development Institute, a for-profit company that is owned by about three dozen hospital executives, but underwritten by 40 or so of its handpicked corporate members, all suppliers to hospitals.
While the financial relationship between doctors and drug companies has come under intense scrutiny, much less is known about how hospital executives interact with companies that sell products as varied as syringes and financial services. In the case of the Healthcare Research and Development Institute, executives benefit from payments made by companies their hospitals do business with..."
Monday, July 17, 2006
The Separation of Powers:
New York Times Editorial: The Real Agenda
It's a little difficult to see how the Times editors are beginning to believe this 'only now.' The signs and the intent have been there from the day Bush 43 took office as Dick Cheney's front-man in an Executive Branch power grab.
Better very late than never...
"It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear. Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.
Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress, the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch..."
New York Times Editorial: The Real Agenda
It's a little difficult to see how the Times editors are beginning to believe this 'only now.' The signs and the intent have been there from the day Bush 43 took office as Dick Cheney's front-man in an Executive Branch power grab.
Better very late than never...
"It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear. Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.
Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress, the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch..."
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
So They Do Have Rights?
...after being tortured during the period when they were denied such rights. Some progress is better than none, I suppose.
Financial Times: US reverses policy on military detainees
"The White House confirmed on Tuesday that the Pentagon had decided, in a major policy shift, that all detainees held in US military custody around the world are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.
The FT has learned that Gordon England, deputy defence secretary, sent a memo to senior defence officials and military officers last Friday, telling them that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions – which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners and requires certain basic legal rights at trial – would apply to all detainees held in US military custody.
This reverses the policy outlined by President George W. Bush in 2002 when he decided members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban did not qualify for Geneva protections because the war on terrorism had ushered in a 'new paradigm…[that] requires new thinking in the law of war'.
The policy U-turn comes on the heels of the Supreme Court ruling last month that the military commissions Mr Bush created to try prisoners at Guantanamo Bay contravened both US law and the Geneva Conventions..."
The So-Called War On Terror And The Politics of Fear:
Jason Leopold: The Political Benefits of Terror
"With the battle for the House and Senate heating up, the White House has once again resorted to its old tactic - instilling fear in the American public - in hopes of regaining control of both Houses of Congress come November.
A peek into the memory hole shows that during the past few election seasons, the Bush administration has made a habit of issuing warnings about imminent terrorist threats in an attempt to shore up the president's sagging poll numbers..."
Energy Politics:
Stirling Newberry: Black Gods: Big Coal Cons America
"America worships a black god - namely, the energy we extract from carbons and hydrocarbon sources. What is ending might be called 'the era of cheap carbon energy.' This is roughly equivalent to the point where trees could no longer supply the carbon energy needs for industrialization in the 18th century. The growth of the world economy is such that the easy-to-extract sources are no longer sufficient for the uses that we can put them to. A key part of this is the durability of the capital of the internal combustion era - cars, houses, factories, buildings - all built with the expectation of falling, or at least slowly rising, costs of carbon energy. The amount of capital that burns carbon is a stock: it keeps accumulating; but the supply of energy is a flow: it is a channel of a certain width, and it takes a great deal of time and effort to expand this channel.
This means that the global economy and the global society - for it is now a global era - are facing a crossroads. One road is to decide that carbon is a rock, and that it belongs mainly in the ground, or bound up in the complex system of life and environment. The other is to believe that by pouring a huge amount of money into the current system, it will be possible to ameliorate enough of the current problems with the energy system to survive, well, at least as long as 65-year-old executives with heart conditions can expect to survive.
What has been lacking is a book that explains what this second road means. On the surface it seems attractive: the United States does not have much more cheap carbon, called 'conventional' sources, but has a huge amount of 'non-conventional' energy, both in the form of kerogenes - a kind of pre-petroleum which is often called 'shale oil' - and in the form of vast coal deposits. The chant for 'energy independence' which politicians and writers of the cheaper kind so easily fall into rests on this huge reserve of black energy.
Finally there is a good, concise starting point for understanding what we are really facing in trying to sweep problems under the carpet: Big Coal. It is the product of the keyboard of Jeff Goodell, a journalist whose work appears in Rolling Stone, the New York Times Magazine, and who already has a bestselling non-fiction book to his credit. In short, this is the product of a man whose life is finding out facts and casting them into words that tell a story..."
...after being tortured during the period when they were denied such rights. Some progress is better than none, I suppose.
Financial Times: US reverses policy on military detainees
"The White House confirmed on Tuesday that the Pentagon had decided, in a major policy shift, that all detainees held in US military custody around the world are entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions.
The FT has learned that Gordon England, deputy defence secretary, sent a memo to senior defence officials and military officers last Friday, telling them that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions – which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners and requires certain basic legal rights at trial – would apply to all detainees held in US military custody.
This reverses the policy outlined by President George W. Bush in 2002 when he decided members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban did not qualify for Geneva protections because the war on terrorism had ushered in a 'new paradigm…[that] requires new thinking in the law of war'.
The policy U-turn comes on the heels of the Supreme Court ruling last month that the military commissions Mr Bush created to try prisoners at Guantanamo Bay contravened both US law and the Geneva Conventions..."
The So-Called War On Terror And The Politics of Fear:
Jason Leopold: The Political Benefits of Terror
"With the battle for the House and Senate heating up, the White House has once again resorted to its old tactic - instilling fear in the American public - in hopes of regaining control of both Houses of Congress come November.
A peek into the memory hole shows that during the past few election seasons, the Bush administration has made a habit of issuing warnings about imminent terrorist threats in an attempt to shore up the president's sagging poll numbers..."
Energy Politics:
Stirling Newberry: Black Gods: Big Coal Cons America
"America worships a black god - namely, the energy we extract from carbons and hydrocarbon sources. What is ending might be called 'the era of cheap carbon energy.' This is roughly equivalent to the point where trees could no longer supply the carbon energy needs for industrialization in the 18th century. The growth of the world economy is such that the easy-to-extract sources are no longer sufficient for the uses that we can put them to. A key part of this is the durability of the capital of the internal combustion era - cars, houses, factories, buildings - all built with the expectation of falling, or at least slowly rising, costs of carbon energy. The amount of capital that burns carbon is a stock: it keeps accumulating; but the supply of energy is a flow: it is a channel of a certain width, and it takes a great deal of time and effort to expand this channel.
This means that the global economy and the global society - for it is now a global era - are facing a crossroads. One road is to decide that carbon is a rock, and that it belongs mainly in the ground, or bound up in the complex system of life and environment. The other is to believe that by pouring a huge amount of money into the current system, it will be possible to ameliorate enough of the current problems with the energy system to survive, well, at least as long as 65-year-old executives with heart conditions can expect to survive.
What has been lacking is a book that explains what this second road means. On the surface it seems attractive: the United States does not have much more cheap carbon, called 'conventional' sources, but has a huge amount of 'non-conventional' energy, both in the form of kerogenes - a kind of pre-petroleum which is often called 'shale oil' - and in the form of vast coal deposits. The chant for 'energy independence' which politicians and writers of the cheaper kind so easily fall into rests on this huge reserve of black energy.
Finally there is a good, concise starting point for understanding what we are really facing in trying to sweep problems under the carpet: Big Coal. It is the product of the keyboard of Jeff Goodell, a journalist whose work appears in Rolling Stone, the New York Times Magazine, and who already has a bestselling non-fiction book to his credit. In short, this is the product of a man whose life is finding out facts and casting them into words that tell a story..."
Monday, July 10, 2006
The So-Called War On Terror And The Rule of Law:
John Dean: Senators Kyl and Graham's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Scam The Deceptive Amicus Brief They Filed in the Guantanamo Detainee Case
"Last week, the Supreme Court issued its historic decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. There, it dealt a substantial blow to the Bush/Cheney Administration's plans for the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and, potentially, elsewhere as well - ruling out, for instance, the option of using military commissions without due process to try detainees.
The decision itself has been widely discussed. Less widely discussed, however, has been its backstory.
The Bush/Cheney Administration has been doing everything possible to keep its treatment of purported terrorist detainees out of the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court. To assist the Administration, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona engaged in a blatant scam that was revealed during the briefing of Hamdan.
Senators Graham and Kyl not only misled their Senate colleagues, but also shamed their high offices by trying to deliberately mislead the U.S. Supreme Court. Their effort failed. I have not seen so blatant a ploy, or abuse of power, since Nixon's reign..."
Politics:
Frances Moore Lappé: Time for Progressives to Grow Up
"George Lakoff’s new best-seller Don’t Think of an Elephant has been heralded as the 'bible' for battered progressives searching for direction in the post-election doldrums. Lakoff himself has become the Left’s answer to Frank Luntz, the focus-group genius behind the branding of Bush’s 'death tax,' 'Clear Skies' and 'Healthy Forests' initiatives.
'Frames,' according to Lakoff, are the key to understanding how political ideas are received. Human beings don’t absorb information as raw material; we sift input through frames of meaning carried in the language we use.
Lakoff’s central idea is that conservatives see the world through a 'strict father' frame emphasizing discipline, self-reliance, forceful defense, while progressives see the world through a 'nurturant parent' frame—supportive, nourishing, emphasizing mutual responsibility. Lakoff claims that thirty-five to 40 percent of Americans fall into each camp, although most are some sort of mix.
The Right, Lakoff points out, is extremely good at selling their policies in clear, easy to understand 'strict father' frames. Progressives, on the other hand, too often seem to offer laundry lists of issues lacking any overarching moral framework..."
Iraq:
Dahr Jamail: "Packing It In"
"Surprise, surprise. In an interview with John King from CNN last Thursday, Dick Cheney said that withdrawing US forces from Iraq would be the 'worst possible thing we could do.'
Doing his best to stoke the always simmering fears of so many US residents (let us be careful how we use the word 'citizen'), Cheney said of the terrorist groups in Iraq, 'If we pull out, they'll follow us.'
Because according to Cheney, 'This is a global conflict. We've seen them attack in London and Madrid and Casablanca and Istanbul and Mombasa and East Africa. They've been, on a global basis, involved in this conflict. And it will continue - whether we complete the job or not in Iraq - only it'll get worse. Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists. They'll use it in order to launch attacks against our friends and allies in that part of the world.'
Lovely to watch how people like Cheney, and the minions who support his ilk, conveniently forget that there was no terrorism in Iraq prior to the US invasion/occupation. And one must love his 'logic.' For according to Cheney, 'whether we complete the job or not in Iraq' his beloved 'terrorism' will 'continue' ... 'only it'll get worse.'
Then why stay in Iraq, Dick?
Because when Dick said, 'only it'll get worse,' if he'd been 100% accurate..."
John Dean: Senators Kyl and Graham's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Scam The Deceptive Amicus Brief They Filed in the Guantanamo Detainee Case
"Last week, the Supreme Court issued its historic decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. There, it dealt a substantial blow to the Bush/Cheney Administration's plans for the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and, potentially, elsewhere as well - ruling out, for instance, the option of using military commissions without due process to try detainees.
The decision itself has been widely discussed. Less widely discussed, however, has been its backstory.
The Bush/Cheney Administration has been doing everything possible to keep its treatment of purported terrorist detainees out of the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court. To assist the Administration, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona engaged in a blatant scam that was revealed during the briefing of Hamdan.
Senators Graham and Kyl not only misled their Senate colleagues, but also shamed their high offices by trying to deliberately mislead the U.S. Supreme Court. Their effort failed. I have not seen so blatant a ploy, or abuse of power, since Nixon's reign..."
Politics:
Frances Moore Lappé: Time for Progressives to Grow Up
"George Lakoff’s new best-seller Don’t Think of an Elephant has been heralded as the 'bible' for battered progressives searching for direction in the post-election doldrums. Lakoff himself has become the Left’s answer to Frank Luntz, the focus-group genius behind the branding of Bush’s 'death tax,' 'Clear Skies' and 'Healthy Forests' initiatives.
'Frames,' according to Lakoff, are the key to understanding how political ideas are received. Human beings don’t absorb information as raw material; we sift input through frames of meaning carried in the language we use.
Lakoff’s central idea is that conservatives see the world through a 'strict father' frame emphasizing discipline, self-reliance, forceful defense, while progressives see the world through a 'nurturant parent' frame—supportive, nourishing, emphasizing mutual responsibility. Lakoff claims that thirty-five to 40 percent of Americans fall into each camp, although most are some sort of mix.
The Right, Lakoff points out, is extremely good at selling their policies in clear, easy to understand 'strict father' frames. Progressives, on the other hand, too often seem to offer laundry lists of issues lacking any overarching moral framework..."
Iraq:
Dahr Jamail: "Packing It In"
"Surprise, surprise. In an interview with John King from CNN last Thursday, Dick Cheney said that withdrawing US forces from Iraq would be the 'worst possible thing we could do.'
Doing his best to stoke the always simmering fears of so many US residents (let us be careful how we use the word 'citizen'), Cheney said of the terrorist groups in Iraq, 'If we pull out, they'll follow us.'
Because according to Cheney, 'This is a global conflict. We've seen them attack in London and Madrid and Casablanca and Istanbul and Mombasa and East Africa. They've been, on a global basis, involved in this conflict. And it will continue - whether we complete the job or not in Iraq - only it'll get worse. Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists. They'll use it in order to launch attacks against our friends and allies in that part of the world.'
Lovely to watch how people like Cheney, and the minions who support his ilk, conveniently forget that there was no terrorism in Iraq prior to the US invasion/occupation. And one must love his 'logic.' For according to Cheney, 'whether we complete the job or not in Iraq' his beloved 'terrorism' will 'continue' ... 'only it'll get worse.'
Then why stay in Iraq, Dick?
Because when Dick said, 'only it'll get worse,' if he'd been 100% accurate..."
Saturday, July 08, 2006
The So-Called War On Terror:
Karl Rove knows that fear sells wonderfully well before an election in which, again, the GOP will present itself as the only party that will do what it takes to 'protect America.'
Raw Story: Sources say no serious plot for NYC, just hate chatter
"One former intelligence field officer says, and two other CIA officials confirm, that the alleged plot by Muslim extremists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in New York City was nothing more than chatter by unaffiliated individuals with no financing or training in an open forum already monitored extensively by the United States Government, RAW STORY has learned.
'The so-called New York tunnel plot was a result of discussions held on an open Jihadi web site,' said Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer and contributor to American Conservative magazine, in a late Friday afternoon conversation. Although Giraldi acknowledges that the persons involved – 'three of whom have already been arrested in Lebanon and elsewhere - are indeed extremists,' their online chatter is considerably overblown by allegations of an actual plot.
'They are not professionally trained terrorists, however, and had no resources with which to carry out the operation they discussed,' Giraldi added. 'Despite press reports that they had asked Abu Musab Zarqawi for assistance, there is no information to confirm that. It is known that the members discussed the possibility of approaching Zarqawi but none of them knew him or had any access to him.'
Two other intelligence officials with experience in the field on extremist operations concurred--and expressed concern that what could have been an operation to eventually track known extremists (should they eventually make actual contact with funds and training,) seems to have been exposed for political gain..."
Exposing Rotten Policy For All To See:
Daniel Ellsberg: Not in Our Name: The Voters' Pledge
"...Today, there must be, at the very least, hundreds of civilian and military officials in the Pentagon, CIA, State Department, National Security Agency and White House who have in their safes and computers comparable documentation of intense internal debates - so far carefully concealed from Congress and the public - about prospective or actual war crimes, reckless policies and domestic crimes: the Pentagon Papers of Iraq, Iran or the ongoing war on U.S. liberties. Some of those officials, I hope, will choose to accept the personal risks of revealing the truth - earlier than I did - before more lives are lost or a new war is launched.
Haditha holds a mirror up not just to American troops in the field, but to our whole society. Not just to the liars in government but to those who believe them too easily. And to all of us in the public, in the administration, in Congress and the media who dissent so far ineffectively or who stand by as murder is being done and do nothing to stop it or expose it.
Americans must summon the civil courage to face what is being done in their name and to refuse to be accomplices. The Voters' Pledge is one way to do this. The Voters' Pledge is a project comprising many of the major organizations in the antiwar movement, United for Peace and Justice, Peace Action, Gold Star Families for Peace, Code Pink, and Democracy Rising, as well as groups with broader agendas like the National Organization for Women, Progressive Democrats of America, AfterDowningStreet.com, and magazines including the American Conservative and The Nation. The goal of this coalition is to build a base of antiwar voters that cannot be ignored by anyone running for office in the United States. We want millions of voters to sign the pledge and say no to pro-war candidates."
Intimidating White House Critics:
This behavior by the President is at odds with his own criticism of leaks of classified information to the media. There is an obvious double-standard being applied here. Selective declassification of sensitive (CIA N.O.C. status & fabricated intelligence sold as irrefutable 'fact') information for the purpose of assassinating the character of a critic is 'good,' while press revelations of government spying in violation of U.S. domestic surveillance law is 'bad.' Sounds like pure hypocricy to me.
Murray Waas: Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic
"President Bush told the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case that he directed Vice President Dick Cheney to personally lead an effort to counter allegations made by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV that his administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq, according to people familiar with the president's interview.
Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004, interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson, the sources said...
...Federal investigators have a substantial amount of evidence that Cheney and Libby spoke about the matter in detail shortly after Wilson's column appeared on July 6. Cheney's handwritten notes in the margin of the Wilson column are one reason that prosecutors have believed that the two men spoke earlier than Libby has said they did.
Why -- if the criminal charges against Libby are correct -- would Libby lie to the FBI and the grand jury that he was only circulating rumors he had heard from reporters?
One obvious reason, prosecutors have believed, is that Libby did not want to admit that he was disseminating material gleaned from classified information. Even if Libby believed that he was unlikely to be charged with disclosing classified information, the investigators think that Libby could have feared the loss of his security clearance or his job. Or, perhaps most important of all, he worried about embarrassing Cheney and Bush.
Sources say investigators believe it is possible that Libby was trying to obscure Cheney's role in the Plame leak -- either by the vice president directing Libby to leak her CIA status, or through a general instruction from Cheney encouraging Libby to get the word out about Plame's role in sending Wilson to Niger. They say it is also possible that Libby lied to conceal the fact that he leaked Plame's identity to the press without Cheney's approval.
Another important reason that Cheney and Libby may have spoken about Plame shortly after July 6, rather than July 12, is that Libby testified that he and Cheney talked on a regular basis after July 6 about how to counteract Wilson's allegations..."
GOP Dirty Tricks:
Raw Story: Man indicted in phone jamming case will argue Administration approved election scheme
"The fourth man indicted in a New Hampshire phone-jamming scheme -- in which Republican operatives jammed the phone lines of Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts in a 2002 Senate race -- will argue at trial that the Bush Administration and the national Republican Party gave their approval to the plan, according to a motion filed by his attorney Thursday.
Shaun Hansen, the former owner of the company that placed hang-up calls to jam Democratic phone lines, was indicted in March for conspiring to commit and aiding and abetting the commission of interstate telephone harassment relating to a scheme to thwart get out the vote efforts on Election Day, 2002..."
How Not To Win Hearts And Minds In Iraq:
Reuters: Marines Failed to Probe Haditha Massacre
"A US military report found that senior Marine officers failed to investigate conflicting and false reports of the killings of up to 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha last year, US media reported on Friday.
Despite evidence that initial reports the civilians died in a roadside bomb attack were false, the investigation found that no Marine officer in the chain of command questioned the original account despite several 'red flags,' CBS News said.
The New York Times quoted two Defense Department officials as saying that Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, head of ground forces in Iraq, had faulted senior staff of the Second Marine Division and recommended unspecified disciplinary action for some officers.
'He concludes that some officers were derelict in their duties,' the Times quoted one of the officials as saying.
Iraqi officials accuse Marines of shooting dead up to 24 people in Haditha, including women and children in their homes, after a Marine was killed in a roadside bomb attack. It would be the worst known case of US military abuse in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.
The military said earlier on Friday that Gen. George Casey, the top US military commander in Iraq, had been sent the report on whether there was a cover-up of Marines' involvement in the killings. The findings have not been released officially..."
On Torture:
Reuters: Panel orders Abu Ghraib documents from Pentagon
"A U.S. congressional panel has ordered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to turn over documents on the probe into abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison after the Pentagon failed to respond to an earlier request.
The House Government Reform Committee issued a subpoena to Rumsfeld last week and said the Pentagon must produce a raft of documents, including all drafts of the report on the Abu Ghraib investigation, by the end of business on July 14.
The subpoena follows Rumsfeld's failure to respond to a March 7 letter from the congressional panel requesting the same documents.
The Pentagon said it had already provided many of the requested documents to its oversight committee -- the House Armed Services Committee -- and has now also delivered documents to the Government Reform Committee..."
Karl Rove knows that fear sells wonderfully well before an election in which, again, the GOP will present itself as the only party that will do what it takes to 'protect America.'
Raw Story: Sources say no serious plot for NYC, just hate chatter
"One former intelligence field officer says, and two other CIA officials confirm, that the alleged plot by Muslim extremists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in New York City was nothing more than chatter by unaffiliated individuals with no financing or training in an open forum already monitored extensively by the United States Government, RAW STORY has learned.
'The so-called New York tunnel plot was a result of discussions held on an open Jihadi web site,' said Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer and contributor to American Conservative magazine, in a late Friday afternoon conversation. Although Giraldi acknowledges that the persons involved – 'three of whom have already been arrested in Lebanon and elsewhere - are indeed extremists,' their online chatter is considerably overblown by allegations of an actual plot.
'They are not professionally trained terrorists, however, and had no resources with which to carry out the operation they discussed,' Giraldi added. 'Despite press reports that they had asked Abu Musab Zarqawi for assistance, there is no information to confirm that. It is known that the members discussed the possibility of approaching Zarqawi but none of them knew him or had any access to him.'
Two other intelligence officials with experience in the field on extremist operations concurred--and expressed concern that what could have been an operation to eventually track known extremists (should they eventually make actual contact with funds and training,) seems to have been exposed for political gain..."
Exposing Rotten Policy For All To See:
Daniel Ellsberg: Not in Our Name: The Voters' Pledge
"...Today, there must be, at the very least, hundreds of civilian and military officials in the Pentagon, CIA, State Department, National Security Agency and White House who have in their safes and computers comparable documentation of intense internal debates - so far carefully concealed from Congress and the public - about prospective or actual war crimes, reckless policies and domestic crimes: the Pentagon Papers of Iraq, Iran or the ongoing war on U.S. liberties. Some of those officials, I hope, will choose to accept the personal risks of revealing the truth - earlier than I did - before more lives are lost or a new war is launched.
Haditha holds a mirror up not just to American troops in the field, but to our whole society. Not just to the liars in government but to those who believe them too easily. And to all of us in the public, in the administration, in Congress and the media who dissent so far ineffectively or who stand by as murder is being done and do nothing to stop it or expose it.
Americans must summon the civil courage to face what is being done in their name and to refuse to be accomplices. The Voters' Pledge is one way to do this. The Voters' Pledge is a project comprising many of the major organizations in the antiwar movement, United for Peace and Justice, Peace Action, Gold Star Families for Peace, Code Pink, and Democracy Rising, as well as groups with broader agendas like the National Organization for Women, Progressive Democrats of America, AfterDowningStreet.com, and magazines including the American Conservative and The Nation. The goal of this coalition is to build a base of antiwar voters that cannot be ignored by anyone running for office in the United States. We want millions of voters to sign the pledge and say no to pro-war candidates."
Intimidating White House Critics:
This behavior by the President is at odds with his own criticism of leaks of classified information to the media. There is an obvious double-standard being applied here. Selective declassification of sensitive (CIA N.O.C. status & fabricated intelligence sold as irrefutable 'fact') information for the purpose of assassinating the character of a critic is 'good,' while press revelations of government spying in violation of U.S. domestic surveillance law is 'bad.' Sounds like pure hypocricy to me.
Murray Waas: Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic
"President Bush told the special prosecutor in the CIA leak case that he directed Vice President Dick Cheney to personally lead an effort to counter allegations made by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV that his administration had misrepresented intelligence information to make the case to go to war with Iraq, according to people familiar with the president's interview.
Bush also told federal prosecutors during his June 24, 2004, interview in the Oval Office that he had directed Cheney, as part of that broader effort, to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Wilson, the sources said...
...Federal investigators have a substantial amount of evidence that Cheney and Libby spoke about the matter in detail shortly after Wilson's column appeared on July 6. Cheney's handwritten notes in the margin of the Wilson column are one reason that prosecutors have believed that the two men spoke earlier than Libby has said they did.
Why -- if the criminal charges against Libby are correct -- would Libby lie to the FBI and the grand jury that he was only circulating rumors he had heard from reporters?
One obvious reason, prosecutors have believed, is that Libby did not want to admit that he was disseminating material gleaned from classified information. Even if Libby believed that he was unlikely to be charged with disclosing classified information, the investigators think that Libby could have feared the loss of his security clearance or his job. Or, perhaps most important of all, he worried about embarrassing Cheney and Bush.
Sources say investigators believe it is possible that Libby was trying to obscure Cheney's role in the Plame leak -- either by the vice president directing Libby to leak her CIA status, or through a general instruction from Cheney encouraging Libby to get the word out about Plame's role in sending Wilson to Niger. They say it is also possible that Libby lied to conceal the fact that he leaked Plame's identity to the press without Cheney's approval.
Another important reason that Cheney and Libby may have spoken about Plame shortly after July 6, rather than July 12, is that Libby testified that he and Cheney talked on a regular basis after July 6 about how to counteract Wilson's allegations..."
GOP Dirty Tricks:
Raw Story: Man indicted in phone jamming case will argue Administration approved election scheme
"The fourth man indicted in a New Hampshire phone-jamming scheme -- in which Republican operatives jammed the phone lines of Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts in a 2002 Senate race -- will argue at trial that the Bush Administration and the national Republican Party gave their approval to the plan, according to a motion filed by his attorney Thursday.
Shaun Hansen, the former owner of the company that placed hang-up calls to jam Democratic phone lines, was indicted in March for conspiring to commit and aiding and abetting the commission of interstate telephone harassment relating to a scheme to thwart get out the vote efforts on Election Day, 2002..."
How Not To Win Hearts And Minds In Iraq:
Reuters: Marines Failed to Probe Haditha Massacre
"A US military report found that senior Marine officers failed to investigate conflicting and false reports of the killings of up to 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha last year, US media reported on Friday.
Despite evidence that initial reports the civilians died in a roadside bomb attack were false, the investigation found that no Marine officer in the chain of command questioned the original account despite several 'red flags,' CBS News said.
The New York Times quoted two Defense Department officials as saying that Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, head of ground forces in Iraq, had faulted senior staff of the Second Marine Division and recommended unspecified disciplinary action for some officers.
'He concludes that some officers were derelict in their duties,' the Times quoted one of the officials as saying.
Iraqi officials accuse Marines of shooting dead up to 24 people in Haditha, including women and children in their homes, after a Marine was killed in a roadside bomb attack. It would be the worst known case of US military abuse in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.
The military said earlier on Friday that Gen. George Casey, the top US military commander in Iraq, had been sent the report on whether there was a cover-up of Marines' involvement in the killings. The findings have not been released officially..."
On Torture:
Reuters: Panel orders Abu Ghraib documents from Pentagon
"A U.S. congressional panel has ordered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to turn over documents on the probe into abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison after the Pentagon failed to respond to an earlier request.
The House Government Reform Committee issued a subpoena to Rumsfeld last week and said the Pentagon must produce a raft of documents, including all drafts of the report on the Abu Ghraib investigation, by the end of business on July 14.
The subpoena follows Rumsfeld's failure to respond to a March 7 letter from the congressional panel requesting the same documents.
The Pentagon said it had already provided many of the requested documents to its oversight committee -- the House Armed Services Committee -- and has now also delivered documents to the Government Reform Committee..."
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Iran:
OK, how much more do the American people need to hear about how George and Dick think before they are relieved of duty? How many consumers of main-stream news will even hear that these two were insisting on being able to use nuclear weapons on Iran?
Seymour Hersh: Last Stand
"...In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. The huge complex includes large underground facilities built into seventy-five-foot-deep holes in the ground and designed to hold as many as fifty thousand centrifuges. 'Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,' the former senior intelligence official told me. 'And Pace stood up to them. Then the world came back: ‘O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.’' At the time, a number of retired officers, including two Army major generals who served in Iraq, Paul Eaton and Charles Swannack, Jr., had begun speaking out against the Administration’s handling of the Iraq war. This period is known to many in the Pentagon as 'the April Revolution,'...
...The discord over Iran can, in part, be ascribed to Rumsfeld’s testy relationship with the generals. They see him as high-handed and unwilling to accept responsibility for what has gone wrong in Iraq. A former Bush Administration official described a recent meeting between Rumsfeld and four-star generals and admirals at a military commanders’ conference, on a base outside Washington, that, he was told, went badly. The commanders later told General Pace that 'they didn’t come here to be lectured by the Defense Secretary. They wanted to tell Rumsfeld what their concerns were.' A few of the officers attended a subsequent meeting between Pace and Rumsfeld, and were unhappy, the former official said, when 'Pace did not repeat any of their complaints. There was disappointment about Pace.' The retired four-star general also described the commanders’ conference as 'very fractious.' He added, 'We’ve got twenty-five hundred dead, people running all over the world doing stupid things, and officers outside the Beltway asking, ‘What the hell is going on?’'...
...But Rumsfeld is not alone in the Administration where Iran is concerned; he is closely allied with Dick Cheney, and, the Pentagon consultant said, 'the President generally defers to the Vice-President on all these issues,' such as dealing with the specifics of a bombing campaign if diplomacy fails. 'He feels that Cheney has an informational advantage. Cheney is not a renegade. He represents the conventional wisdom in all of this. He appeals to the strategic-bombing lobby in the Air Force—who think that carpet bombing is the solution to all problems,'..."
OK, how much more do the American people need to hear about how George and Dick think before they are relieved of duty? How many consumers of main-stream news will even hear that these two were insisting on being able to use nuclear weapons on Iran?
Seymour Hersh: Last Stand
"...In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. The huge complex includes large underground facilities built into seventy-five-foot-deep holes in the ground and designed to hold as many as fifty thousand centrifuges. 'Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,' the former senior intelligence official told me. 'And Pace stood up to them. Then the world came back: ‘O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.’' At the time, a number of retired officers, including two Army major generals who served in Iraq, Paul Eaton and Charles Swannack, Jr., had begun speaking out against the Administration’s handling of the Iraq war. This period is known to many in the Pentagon as 'the April Revolution,'...
...The discord over Iran can, in part, be ascribed to Rumsfeld’s testy relationship with the generals. They see him as high-handed and unwilling to accept responsibility for what has gone wrong in Iraq. A former Bush Administration official described a recent meeting between Rumsfeld and four-star generals and admirals at a military commanders’ conference, on a base outside Washington, that, he was told, went badly. The commanders later told General Pace that 'they didn’t come here to be lectured by the Defense Secretary. They wanted to tell Rumsfeld what their concerns were.' A few of the officers attended a subsequent meeting between Pace and Rumsfeld, and were unhappy, the former official said, when 'Pace did not repeat any of their complaints. There was disappointment about Pace.' The retired four-star general also described the commanders’ conference as 'very fractious.' He added, 'We’ve got twenty-five hundred dead, people running all over the world doing stupid things, and officers outside the Beltway asking, ‘What the hell is going on?’'...
...But Rumsfeld is not alone in the Administration where Iran is concerned; he is closely allied with Dick Cheney, and, the Pentagon consultant said, 'the President generally defers to the Vice-President on all these issues,' such as dealing with the specifics of a bombing campaign if diplomacy fails. 'He feels that Cheney has an informational advantage. Cheney is not a renegade. He represents the conventional wisdom in all of this. He appeals to the strategic-bombing lobby in the Air Force—who think that carpet bombing is the solution to all problems,'..."
Monday, July 03, 2006
The Rule of Law:
Michael Ratner: For His Eyes Only: Bush's Secret Crimes
"...On June 15, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit to block the New Jersey Attorney General from demanding that telephone companies answer whether they have broken the law by providing records to the National Security Agency (NSA). On behalf of the Bush Administration, government attorneys argued that New Jersey cannot investigate whether the phone companies broke the law, because this could compromise national security.
Government attorneys used the same argument in May to demand a federal court drop a case challenging warrantless domestic wiretapping - without even hearing the evidence. They declared that the court case itself would compromise national security. The Bush Administration demanded the judge throw out the case without any more review.
How are these unilateral demands even possible in American courts?
In both instances, the administration is using a sweeping doctrine, the State Secrets Privilege, to dismiss cases that could challenge government misconduct. Under this privilege, established by the Supreme Court in 1953, the executive branch can halt cases that might expose government secrets. When the administration invokes state secrets, even judges are not allowed to assess the information and decide if the claim is valid. Instead, the Justice Department simply declares that continuing the case, even in a closed setting, would jeopardize national security. After that, a judge is simply supposed to throw the case out of court. So instead of the court checking the executive and keeping it within its constitutional boundaries, the President becomes the only informed judge of his conduct.
The case that the administration tried to preempt with state secrets last month is CCR v. Bush, which I helped file with the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Americans who were targeted for warrantless electronic spying. But the case does not currently include any major secrets. In fact, the evidence cited in our briefs is not from secret government documents, but from the public record. (For example, the briefs quote public statements by President Bush and then-NSA Chief Michael V. Hayden). So it is hard to accept the Bush Administration's assertion that discussing this public information in court would expose government secrets.
This case is important because it is one of the last resorts to challenging domestic surveillance. The suit challenges illegal surveillance of attorneys' conversations and e-mails, which violates federal law, the Constitution and due process. If the administration can spy on Americans without warrants and judicial review, there will be no check to prevent the Executive Branch from spying on anyone it chooses, including political opponents challenging its power, journalists scrutinizing its actions, or attorneys challenging its conduct..."
Michael Ratner: For His Eyes Only: Bush's Secret Crimes
"...On June 15, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit to block the New Jersey Attorney General from demanding that telephone companies answer whether they have broken the law by providing records to the National Security Agency (NSA). On behalf of the Bush Administration, government attorneys argued that New Jersey cannot investigate whether the phone companies broke the law, because this could compromise national security.
Government attorneys used the same argument in May to demand a federal court drop a case challenging warrantless domestic wiretapping - without even hearing the evidence. They declared that the court case itself would compromise national security. The Bush Administration demanded the judge throw out the case without any more review.
How are these unilateral demands even possible in American courts?
In both instances, the administration is using a sweeping doctrine, the State Secrets Privilege, to dismiss cases that could challenge government misconduct. Under this privilege, established by the Supreme Court in 1953, the executive branch can halt cases that might expose government secrets. When the administration invokes state secrets, even judges are not allowed to assess the information and decide if the claim is valid. Instead, the Justice Department simply declares that continuing the case, even in a closed setting, would jeopardize national security. After that, a judge is simply supposed to throw the case out of court. So instead of the court checking the executive and keeping it within its constitutional boundaries, the President becomes the only informed judge of his conduct.
The case that the administration tried to preempt with state secrets last month is CCR v. Bush, which I helped file with the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Americans who were targeted for warrantless electronic spying. But the case does not currently include any major secrets. In fact, the evidence cited in our briefs is not from secret government documents, but from the public record. (For example, the briefs quote public statements by President Bush and then-NSA Chief Michael V. Hayden). So it is hard to accept the Bush Administration's assertion that discussing this public information in court would expose government secrets.
This case is important because it is one of the last resorts to challenging domestic surveillance. The suit challenges illegal surveillance of attorneys' conversations and e-mails, which violates federal law, the Constitution and due process. If the administration can spy on Americans without warrants and judicial review, there will be no check to prevent the Executive Branch from spying on anyone it chooses, including political opponents challenging its power, journalists scrutinizing its actions, or attorneys challenging its conduct..."
The Mexican Election:
Greg Palast: Pascarella and Palast: Stealing It in Front of Your Eyes
"Gore v. Bush.
Kerry v Bush.
Lopez Obrador v Calderon.
As in Florida in 2000, as in Ohio in 2004, the exit polls show the voters voted for the progressive candidate, but the race is 'officially' too close to call.
But they will call it - after they steal it. Reuters News agency reports that, as of 8pm Eastern time, as voting concluded in Mexico, exit polls show Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the 'left-wing' Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) leading in exit polls over Felipe Calderon of the ruling conservative National Action Party (PAN).
We've said again and again: Exit polls tell us how voters say they voted, but the voters can't tell pollsters if their vote will be counted. In Mexico, counting the vote is an art, not a science - and Calderon's ruling crew is very artful indeed. The PAN-controlled official electoral commission, not surprisingly, has announced that the presidential tally is too close to call.
Calderon's election is openly supported by the Bush Administration.
On the ground in Mexico City, our news team reports accusations from inside the Obrador campaign that operatives of the PAN had access to voter files which are supposed to be the sole property of the nation's electoral commission.
We are not surprised.
This past Friday, we reported that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation had obtained Mexico's voter files under a secret 'counterterrorism' contract with database company ChoicePoint of Alpharetta, Georgia. (See BUSH TEAM HELPS RULING PARTY 'FLORIDIZE' MEXICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION).
The FBI's contractor states that, following the arrest of ChoicePoint agents by the Mexican
government, the company returned or destroyed its files. The firm claims not to have known collecting this information violated Mexican law. Such files can be useful in challenging a voter's right to cast a ballot or in preventing that vote from counting.
It is, of course, impossible to know if the FBI destroyed its own copy of the files of Mexico's voter rolls obtained by Choicepoint or if these were then used to illegally assist the Calderon candidacy.
But we can see the results: as in the US, first in Florida then in Ohio, the exit polls are at odds with 'official' polls.
In November 2004, US Republican Senator Richard Lugar, in Kiev, cited the divergence of exit polls and official polls as solid evidence of 'blatant fraud' in the vote count in Ukraine. As a result, the Bush Administration refused to recognize the Ukraine government's official
vote tally...which proves once again that Republicans are incapable of irony.
The foreign mainstream press has already announced, despite the polling discrepancies, that Mexico's elections were fair and clean - which would be a first for that country where Lopez Obrador's party has seen its candidates defeated by 'blatant fraud' before. The change this time is that the fraud is simply less blatant."
The Fourth Estate:
Frank Rich: Can't Win the War? Bomb the Press!
"'Old Glory lost today,' Bill Frist declaimed last week when his second attempt to rewrite the Constitution in a single month went the way of his happy prognosis for Terri Schiavo. Of course it isn't Old Glory that lost when the flag-burning amendment flamed out. The flag always survives the politicians who wrap themselves in it. What really provoked Mr. Frist's crocodile tears was the foiling of yet another ruse to distract Americans from the wreckage in Iraq. He and his party, eager to change the subject in an election year, just can't let go of their scapegoat strategy. It's illegal Hispanic immigrants, gay couples seeking marital rights, cut-and-run Democrats and rampaging flag burners who have betrayed America's values, not those who bungled a war.
No sooner were the flag burners hustled offstage than a new traitor was unveiled for the Fourth: the press. Public enemy No. 1 is The New York Times, which was accused of a 'disgraceful' compromise of national security (by President Bush) and treason (by Representative Peter King of New York and the Coulter amen chorus). The Times's offense was to publish a front-page article about a comprehensive American effort to track terrorists with the aid of a Belgian consortium, Swift, which serves as a clearinghouse for some 7,800 financial institutions in 200 countries.
It was a solid piece of journalism. But if you want to learn the truly dirty secrets of how our government prosecutes this war, the story of how it vilified The Times is more damning than anything in the article that caused the uproar...
...The assault on a free press during our own wartime should be recognized for what it is: another desperate ploy by officials trying to hide their own lethal mistakes in the shadows. It's the antithesis of everything we celebrate with the blazing lights of Independence Day."
Greg Palast: Pascarella and Palast: Stealing It in Front of Your Eyes
"Gore v. Bush.
Kerry v Bush.
Lopez Obrador v Calderon.
As in Florida in 2000, as in Ohio in 2004, the exit polls show the voters voted for the progressive candidate, but the race is 'officially' too close to call.
But they will call it - after they steal it. Reuters News agency reports that, as of 8pm Eastern time, as voting concluded in Mexico, exit polls show Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the 'left-wing' Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) leading in exit polls over Felipe Calderon of the ruling conservative National Action Party (PAN).
We've said again and again: Exit polls tell us how voters say they voted, but the voters can't tell pollsters if their vote will be counted. In Mexico, counting the vote is an art, not a science - and Calderon's ruling crew is very artful indeed. The PAN-controlled official electoral commission, not surprisingly, has announced that the presidential tally is too close to call.
Calderon's election is openly supported by the Bush Administration.
On the ground in Mexico City, our news team reports accusations from inside the Obrador campaign that operatives of the PAN had access to voter files which are supposed to be the sole property of the nation's electoral commission.
We are not surprised.
This past Friday, we reported that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation had obtained Mexico's voter files under a secret 'counterterrorism' contract with database company ChoicePoint of Alpharetta, Georgia. (See BUSH TEAM HELPS RULING PARTY 'FLORIDIZE' MEXICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION).
The FBI's contractor states that, following the arrest of ChoicePoint agents by the Mexican
government, the company returned or destroyed its files. The firm claims not to have known collecting this information violated Mexican law. Such files can be useful in challenging a voter's right to cast a ballot or in preventing that vote from counting.
It is, of course, impossible to know if the FBI destroyed its own copy of the files of Mexico's voter rolls obtained by Choicepoint or if these were then used to illegally assist the Calderon candidacy.
But we can see the results: as in the US, first in Florida then in Ohio, the exit polls are at odds with 'official' polls.
In November 2004, US Republican Senator Richard Lugar, in Kiev, cited the divergence of exit polls and official polls as solid evidence of 'blatant fraud' in the vote count in Ukraine. As a result, the Bush Administration refused to recognize the Ukraine government's official
vote tally...which proves once again that Republicans are incapable of irony.
The foreign mainstream press has already announced, despite the polling discrepancies, that Mexico's elections were fair and clean - which would be a first for that country where Lopez Obrador's party has seen its candidates defeated by 'blatant fraud' before. The change this time is that the fraud is simply less blatant."
The Fourth Estate:
Frank Rich: Can't Win the War? Bomb the Press!
"'Old Glory lost today,' Bill Frist declaimed last week when his second attempt to rewrite the Constitution in a single month went the way of his happy prognosis for Terri Schiavo. Of course it isn't Old Glory that lost when the flag-burning amendment flamed out. The flag always survives the politicians who wrap themselves in it. What really provoked Mr. Frist's crocodile tears was the foiling of yet another ruse to distract Americans from the wreckage in Iraq. He and his party, eager to change the subject in an election year, just can't let go of their scapegoat strategy. It's illegal Hispanic immigrants, gay couples seeking marital rights, cut-and-run Democrats and rampaging flag burners who have betrayed America's values, not those who bungled a war.
No sooner were the flag burners hustled offstage than a new traitor was unveiled for the Fourth: the press. Public enemy No. 1 is The New York Times, which was accused of a 'disgraceful' compromise of national security (by President Bush) and treason (by Representative Peter King of New York and the Coulter amen chorus). The Times's offense was to publish a front-page article about a comprehensive American effort to track terrorists with the aid of a Belgian consortium, Swift, which serves as a clearinghouse for some 7,800 financial institutions in 200 countries.
It was a solid piece of journalism. But if you want to learn the truly dirty secrets of how our government prosecutes this war, the story of how it vilified The Times is more damning than anything in the article that caused the uproar...
...The assault on a free press during our own wartime should be recognized for what it is: another desperate ploy by officials trying to hide their own lethal mistakes in the shadows. It's the antithesis of everything we celebrate with the blazing lights of Independence Day."
Sunshine Laws:
Too often, Team Bush uses 'secrecy' and 'national security' to avoid Congressional and public oversight, scrutiny and review of the government's business in general and the Executive's conduct in particular. The public deserves much, much better, from the Offices that are sworn to protect its interests and to uphold the Constitution.
Jimmy Carter: We Need Fewer Secrets
"The U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) turns 40 tomorrow, the day we celebrate our independence. But this anniversary will not be a day of celebration for the right to information in our country. Our government leaders have become increasingly obsessed with secrecy. Obstructionist policies and deficient practices have ensured that many important public documents and official actions remain hidden from our view.
The events in our nation today -- war, civil rights violations, spiraling energy costs, campaign finance and lobbyist scandals -- dictate the growing need and citizens' desire for access to public documents. A poll conducted last year found that 70 percent of Americans are either somewhat or very concerned about government secrecy. This is understandable when the U.S. government uses at least 50 designations to restrict unclassified information and created 81 percent more 'secrets' in 2005 than in 2000, according to the watchdog coalition OpenTheGovernment.org...
...Increasingly, developed and developing nations are recognizing that a free flow of information is fundamental for democracy. Whether it's government or private companies that provide public services, access to their records increases accountability and allows citizens to participate more fully in public life. It is a critical tool in fighting corruption, and people can use it to improve their own lives in the areas of health care, education, housing and other public services. Perhaps most important, access to information advances citizens' trust in their government, allowing people to understand policy decisions and monitor their implementation.
Nearly 70 countries have passed legislation to ensure the right to request and receive public documents, the vast majority in the past decade and many in middle- and low-income nations. While the United States retreats, the international trend toward transparency grows, with laws often more comprehensive and effective than our own. Unlike FOIA, which covers only the executive branch, modern legislation includes all branches of power and some private companies. Moreover, new access laws establish ways to monitor implementation and enforce the right, holding agencies accountable for providing information quickly and fully..."
Too often, Team Bush uses 'secrecy' and 'national security' to avoid Congressional and public oversight, scrutiny and review of the government's business in general and the Executive's conduct in particular. The public deserves much, much better, from the Offices that are sworn to protect its interests and to uphold the Constitution.
Jimmy Carter: We Need Fewer Secrets
"The U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) turns 40 tomorrow, the day we celebrate our independence. But this anniversary will not be a day of celebration for the right to information in our country. Our government leaders have become increasingly obsessed with secrecy. Obstructionist policies and deficient practices have ensured that many important public documents and official actions remain hidden from our view.
The events in our nation today -- war, civil rights violations, spiraling energy costs, campaign finance and lobbyist scandals -- dictate the growing need and citizens' desire for access to public documents. A poll conducted last year found that 70 percent of Americans are either somewhat or very concerned about government secrecy. This is understandable when the U.S. government uses at least 50 designations to restrict unclassified information and created 81 percent more 'secrets' in 2005 than in 2000, according to the watchdog coalition OpenTheGovernment.org...
...Increasingly, developed and developing nations are recognizing that a free flow of information is fundamental for democracy. Whether it's government or private companies that provide public services, access to their records increases accountability and allows citizens to participate more fully in public life. It is a critical tool in fighting corruption, and people can use it to improve their own lives in the areas of health care, education, housing and other public services. Perhaps most important, access to information advances citizens' trust in their government, allowing people to understand policy decisions and monitor their implementation.
Nearly 70 countries have passed legislation to ensure the right to request and receive public documents, the vast majority in the past decade and many in middle- and low-income nations. While the United States retreats, the international trend toward transparency grows, with laws often more comprehensive and effective than our own. Unlike FOIA, which covers only the executive branch, modern legislation includes all branches of power and some private companies. Moreover, new access laws establish ways to monitor implementation and enforce the right, holding agencies accountable for providing information quickly and fully..."
