StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

When Alberto Gonalez said that his meeting with Atty Gen’l Ashcroft in the hospital was not to discuss the Terrorist Surveillance Program, I’m betting that he was truthful.  That meeting was about an undisclosed surveillance activity.

Somehow, when I posted about it last night, Gonzalez: Terrorist Surveillance Program "Plus", it didn’t seem to set off any bells.  So here it is today being discussed in the Washington Post.  I don’t actually care if its the rebirth of the Total Information Awareness program or some other anti-terrorism program.  It was pretty obvious to me that as squirrely as Gonzalez is, he wasn’t really lying, he simply wasn’t answering questions that hadn’t been asked.  As Ruth Marcus has written in the WaPo article, Short of Perjury:

"The disagreement that occurred and the reason for the visit to the hospital…was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the Terrorist Surveillance Program that the president announced to the American people."

– and it makes sense that we don’t know: This was a classified program, and all the officials, current and former, who have testified about it have been deliberately and appropriately vague.

That’s why Robert Mueller’s testimony doesn’t contradict the testimony of Gonzalez.  They were referring to different programs.  I wrote about data mining in Gonzalez: Terrorist Surveillance Program "Plus".  No, I don’t know any of this for certain.

The Supreme Court could have been writing about Gonzales when it ruled that "the perjury statute is not to be loosely construed, nor the statute invoked simply because a wily witness succeeds in derailing the questioner — so long as the witness speaks the literal truth" — even if the answers "were not guileless but were shrewdly calculated to evade."

Everyone is so damn anxious to take shots at GWB and his people that they miss the real issues.  Marcus argues that Conrgess should be:

…to see what changes might guard against a repetition of the early, apparently unlawful activities; and to determine where the foreign intelligence wiretapping statute might need fixes.

I’m no fan of Alberto Gonzalez.  But when it comes to National Security and surveillance of potential or suspected terrorists, I say HAVE AT IT!

Please place your "mark" (vote) on RCP.

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, International Issues, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

All of the focus is whether Alberto Gonzalez lied or misrespresented in his testimony to Congress about his visit to Ashcroft’s hospital room to re-certify the Terrorist Surveillance Program.  I think there’s alot more to it…like covering up a different, more covert security program.

OK, fine, its speculation.  But if you watched any part of Alberto’s testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary panel, there is something going on here…I watched most of the hearings, but if you didn’t, here is the transcript of the testimony.  Both the Democrats and the Republicans are gunning for Gonzalez.  But frankly, he wasn’t lying if the questions about the Terrorist Surveillance Program, when in fact, on the day in question, he was actually discussing a different covert program.

Gonzales’s Truthfulness Long Disputed - Claims of Misstatements to Shield Bush Stretch Back a Decade

Over the past 2 1/2 years, lawmakers have accused Gonzales of dissembling on many topics, including civil liberties abuses under the USA Patriot Act and his role in reviewing aggressive interrogation tactics. After a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February 2006, Gonzales sent the panel a six-page, single-spaced letter to "clarify" six major points of testimony, including his erroneous claim that the Justice Department had never undertaken a legal analysis of domestic wiretapping.

Mmmm, okay, so going back to 2006…Gonzales Defends U.S. Wiretapping Program…Several Republicans joined Democratic senators on the Senate Judiciary
Committee Tuesday in questioning the legality of secret wiretapping
authorized by President Bush…

Lets go back to the accusations of Gonzalez pressuing Ashcroft to re-certify the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Gonzalez denies pressuing Ashcroft in hospital
Note that there is a conflict here between the Gonzalez-Andy Card accounts of this hospital visit with that of James Comey, Ashcroft’s designee.

FBI director contradicts Gonzales’ testimony

In his own sworn testimony Thursday, Mueller contradicted his boss, saying under questioning that the terrorist surveillance program (TSP) was the topic of the hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials.

Mueller was not in the hospital room at the time of the dramatic March 10, 2004, confrontation between Ashcroft and presidential advisers Andy Card and Gonzales, who was then serving as White House counsel.

Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee he arrived shortly after they left, and then spoke with the ailing Ashcroft.

Mmmm…if Ashcroft wasn’t lucid enough to be consulted by Gonzalez, to what degree was he lucid afterwards when Mueller spoke with him?

I truly suspect that there is much more going on here than the disputed Terrorist Surveillance Program.  What, you ask?  Well, lets start with this:

Gonzales faces call on data mining

…a dispute with Mr Gonzales’ predecessor was about a data mining operation by the security agencies.

As part of an investigation into the sacking of nine prosecutors, allegedly for political reasons, Mr Gonzales was questioned by the Senate Judiciary committee last week about a 2004 bedside meeting with then attorney-general John Ashcroft.

Besides, it is very possble that Alberto Gonzalez was being truthful, but still not telling everything that he knows!

Security factors hemmed Gonzales’s testimony, White House says
Spokesman calls attorney general’s account truthful
The White House offered a vigorous defense of Attorney General Alberto
R. Gonzales yesterday, insisting that he had not given misleading
testimony to Congress, but that national security factors prevented
further clarification for now.

"He has testified truthfully and tried to be very accurate," the chief White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said of Gonzales’ testimony this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Now, one final point.  Remember the Total Information Awareness program.  If you want more speculation (and those few who have read Storm Blog for a while, know that I rarely speculate), TIA is probably still alive, even though it was supposedly killed after disclosure.  And its possible that there is at least one additional, covert information surveillance effort on-going now.  If I am right, frankly, I’m glad.

If I’m wrong (especially about all of this speculation), maybe Alberto has been lying.

Current Affairs, Domestic Terrorism, Federal Policy, International Issues, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

Now, this comes under the heading of "Doh!"  The U.S. Embassy today warned Americans to be cautious when traveling in Afghanistan and to be very cautious when moving about in Kabul.

The U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan is warning American citizens to be very cautious traveling in the capital city of Kabul after getting information about a possible threat against Kabul University.

Well, I guess if you’re there as a government contractor or student (why would an American student go to Kabul University), it might be understandable for an American to be in Afghanistan.  Actually, no, its not!  Who in their right mind would be in Afghanistan?  Its a dangerous country.

The warnings to American citizens come as the Afghanistan government is seeking the release of South Korean hostages seized by Taliban militants more than a week ago.

In case anyone didn’t notice, the Taliban are resurrected and vital, the imaginary border with Pakistan means nothing, and Musharraf’s government could fall at any time…leading to either another military leader (dictator) or a take-over by jihadists (even if by proxy).

More from our government:

The embassy urged them to: be aware of surroundings; vary times and routes of travel; avoid traveling after dark; do not travel alone; avoid crowded areas and demonstrations; avoid Afghan and international government buildings and compounds; and do not approach any international or local military or government convoys.

Masters of understatement.

"Tap" it at RCP.

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, International Issues, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

A moment of Iraqi glory and celebration at winning the Asian Cup soccer match against Saudi Arabia by a score of 1-0 turned horrible as a display of Arab cultural victory and strength, bullets shot to the sky fell to Earth when the laws of physics took over, killing atleast 7.

Mosques broadcast calls for the shooting to stop, while security forces enforced a vehicle ban in the capital in an effort to prevent a repeat of car bombings that killed dozens celebrating Iraq’s progress to the finals in Asia’s top soccer tournament.

Police in Baghdad and Kut reported at least seven deaths and more than
50 people wounded by stray bullets as gun-toting revellers took to the
streets in a wave of euphoria unprecedented after four years of war.

While mainly comprised of Shiites, the team was captained by a Sunni Turkman from Kirkuk — goal-scoring hero Younis Mahmoud — and also contained Sunni Arab and Kurdish players in a broad representation of Iraqi society.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who watched the match in a gold-painted chair in his office, quickly issued a statement praising the team’s victory. Maliki will give a reception for the players on their return to Iraq, officials said.

In Baghdad’s Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite slum, women threw sweets to gathering fans and poured water over crowds in sweltering summer heat. "A thousand congratulations for all Iraqis," another fan said.

One harsh conclusion that could be reached is that we should encourage the Iraqi athletic associations.  However, as it always happens, athletics does tend to unite people.

"We are celebrating because this team represents all Iraqi sects," said Awas Khalid, one of the thousands of Kurds who celebrated the win in the city of Sulaimaniyah in the Kurdish north, where secessionist sentiment has been on the rise.

This is a case in which pictures are worth at least a thousand words.  See here.

"Back in the day" when I played soccer (high school, college and then in a "30-something" league), no one fired guns into the air…then again, we didn’t win too often.

"Tap" it at RCP.

Current Affairs, International Issues, Iraq, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Executive privilege is a concept initially used by the original GW, named by Ike, and abused by "Tricky Dick."  Now, some say that George W. Bush is wielding it as the definitive separation of power with Congress.  Obviously. this relates to the on-going controversy over the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys as well as the continued reticence of VP Cheney to disclose anything.

Generally speaking, executive privilege is the President’s right to withhold certain information from Congress, the courts and most anyone else, even in the face of a subpoena. It’s a conditional privilege, meaning it can be overridden in some circumstances, such as when the President is the target of a criminal investigation. That’s why President Nixon famously lost his 1974 struggle in the U.S. Supreme Court to keep the Watergate tapes private. But the courts are typically deferential to the privilege, presuming that it holds unless someone can prove an overwhelming interest in obtaining the information.

"…Executive privilege is an implied power derived from Article II.
It is most easily defined as the right of the president and high-level
executive branch officers to withhold information from those who have
compulsory power - Congress and the courts (and, therefore, ultimately
the public). This right is not absolute. The modern understanding of
executive privilege has evolved over a long period, the result of
presidential actions, official administration policies, and court
decisions…"

Let’s start with this recently updated report from the Congressional Research Service: Presidential Advisers’ Testimony Before Congressional Committees: A Brief Overview
Since
the beginning of the federal government, Presidents have called upon
executive branch officials to provide them with advice regarding
matters of policy and administration. While Cabinet members were among
the first to play such a role, the creation of the Executive Office of
the President (EOP) in 1939 and the various agencies located within
that structure resulted in a large increase the number and variety of
presidential advisers. All senior staff members of the White House
Office and the leaders of the various EOP agencies and
instrumentalities could be said to serve as advisers to the President.

Occasionally,
these executive branch officials playing a presidential advisory role
have been called upon to testify before congressional committees and
subcommittees. Sometimes, such invited appearances have been prompted
by allegations of personal misconduct on the part of the official, but
they have also included instances when accountability for policymaking
and administrative or managerial actions have instigated the request
for testimony. Because such appearances before congressional committees
or subcommittees seemingly could result in demands for advice proffered
to the President, or the disclosure—inadvertent or otherwise—of such
advice, there has been resistance, from time to time, by the Chief
Executive to allowing such testimony.

Congress has a
constitutionally rooted right of access to the information it needs to
perform its Article I legislative and oversight functions. Generally, a
congressional committee with jurisdiction over the subject matter,
which is conducting an authorized investigation for legislative or
oversight purposes, has a right to information held by the executive
branch in the absence of either a valid claim of constitutional
privilege by the executive or a statutory provision whereby Congress
has limited its constitutional right to information. A congressional
committee may request (informally, or by a letter from the committee
chair, perhaps co-signed by the ranking Member) or demand (pursuant to
subpoena) the testimony of a presidential adviser. However, Congress
may encounter legal and political problems in attempting to enforce a
subpoena to a presidential adviser. Conflicts concerning congressional
requests or demands for executive branch testimony or documents often
involve extensive negotiations and may be resolved by some form of
compromise as to, inter alia, the scope of the testimony or information
to be provided to Congress.

More information on the Executive Privilege and its application can be found in A BRIEF HISTORY OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON THROUGH DICK CHENEY written in February 2002 during the first Vice President Cheney privilege brouhaha.

Privilege versus public interest is discussed in U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (also here).

There are many examples in which Executive Branch advisors testified (starts on page CRS-7)
Beginning with the closing years of World War II, examples are provided below of instances when a presidential adviser — a civilian executive branch official, other than a member of the traditional Cabinet, who, as part of that official’s responsibilities and activities, consulted with the President — testified before a congressional committee or subcommittee. Because these consultations with the President by such an official may be considered by the President to be privileged and constitutionally protectable, examples are also provided of instances when invited congressional committee or subcommittee testimony by a presidential adviser was refused. None of the examples involves testimony or refusal to testify by a former presidential adviser. All examples are based upon the public record. [see list that follows in the CRS report].

The question is whether or not President Bush and his staff (and by extension, the staff of the Vice President or members of the Cabinet) will disclose details of discussions.

Despite his strong views of executive power, the current President Bush has rarely invoked executive privilege, says Rozell, at least not under that label. For example, the Administration claimed executive privilege in substance while blocking disclosure of what was discussed during meetings of Vice President Dick Cheney’s taskforce on energy. The Supreme Court upheld the Administration’s claim in 2004, with Justice Anthony Kennedy warning that executive privilege can set "coequal branches of the government… on a collision course."

In contrast, Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, was far more aggressive in asserting the privilege, according to Rozell. Most of the claims came in the President’s battles with special prosecutor Kenneth Starr over disclosure of information about Clinton’s relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton generally lost those battles before the U.S. district court in Washington, D.C.

Court showdowns over the privilege are rare, though, with the warring parties almost always reaching a political compromise. That seems likely in the current case…

Clearly, the "loyal opposition" as embodied in the publication, the Nation, will disagree, and insist that all of these issues of executive privilege are instead an abuse of power.  I don’t really see it as so black and white as seen by the Nation.

The executive branch has the greatest capacity to create secrets, thanks to its enormous intelligence apparatus. The growing risk of abuse, and the greater capacity for corrosive secrets, means we must find new ways to constrain the Article II leviathan. Moreover, arguments defending the privilege are much weaker than supposed. Foremost among these is what Bush calls the need for "crisp decision-making." Without secrecy, he implies, Presidents do not get candid advice.

There are three reasons this canard ought not to fend off a new law. First, executive privilege is never absolute: The Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon ordered the disclosure of intimate conversations between a President and his advisers. Second, claims for executive privilege are now untethered from any decision-making process that involves the President; they have been extended, viruslike, to the sprawling White House policy-making staff. Third, is it so bad for officials to feel the eyes of the people on their back? After all, they have a fidelity not only to the person who happens to sit in the Oval Office but also, via the Constitution, to the people. Why should officials ever forget their second — and arguably greater — obligation?

Were it not for the ultimate need and requirement to maintain security in National Security decisions in today’s world, I might be more adamant about controlling the extent of executive privilege.  How you can control secrecy in other areas based on executive privilege given this need, is beyond my scope.  While generally, the people have the "right to know," there is the essential issue of "need to know" that overrides…

…Running in the Administration’s favor is the uncertain context of
Congress’ demand for testimony. When Nixon and Clinton invoked the
privilege, they had to argue against the strong interests of special
prosecutors in obtaining information for a criminal investigation.
"Here, we’re talking about a congressional committee asking for
testimony," says Rozell. "It’s a lot murkier."

Leave a check mark at RCP for this post, and then check out the Sunday Reading List at Right Truth.

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

In the minutes, hours and days following the attacks of September 11 there were many heroes.  Their acts of bravery and selflessness showed the true meaning of doing for others without regard for one’s own safety.  One such hero died July 25th from cancer.

Jake was one of less than 200 federally-certified rescue dogs.  This black Labrador Retriever was 12 years old when he was euthanized this week after suffering from cancer.  Did he succumb to old age disease (cancer is common in dogs Jake’s age), or to the exposure to the dust and debrie of the crumbled World Trade Center towers will be determines perhaps by autopsy.  The same story relates that what could be human remains of 65 people were also found near the Liberty Street section of the site.

His owner, Mary Flood had Jake put to sleep yesterday after a last stroll through the fields and a dip in the creek near their home in Oakley, Utah . He was in too much pain at the end, shaking with a 105-degree fever as he lay on the lawn…Jake’s ashes will be scattered
"in places that were important to him," like his Utah training grounds,
the rivers and hills near home where he swam and roamed.

After Katrina, Jake (and his owner) drove to Mississippi where he helped search for missing victims of the hurricane and floods.  More about Jake here.

And finally, a fitting tribute to Jake written by Roy Exum in the Chatanoogan.com titled, A Great Hero Has Died

…when I read one of our nation’s greatest heroes of all time hadn’t done well on his last walk through his beloved Utah fields and had died on Wednesday, Lordy, I wanted to cry real hard…

…So, yes, my heroes come in packages a little different than most, and chances are good you never heard of many of them, so today I bring before you one of my all-time greatest, whose name was simply “Jake…”

…That was where he caught the nation’s heart, this one dog who wouldn’t quit despite badly burned paws, blisters on his nose, smoke pouring into his eyes. The carnage would still be burning and Jake, from Utah, would absolutely dive in the middle, saving countless people thought to have been dead and leaving only a bloody set of paw prints as he raced to a new location in Ground Zero…

Too much ado about "just a dog" you might say.  I think not.

"His name was simply Jake. He was a dog."  He was also a hero.  Heroes come in all shapes, sizes, colors and yes, breeds.

Human Remains Found at World Trade Center site:
DNA identifies 9/11 victim
WTC remains ID’d as NY man
Scarsdale Man Latest 9/11 Victim Identified by DNA
Scarsdale man’s remains identified from fragments at Ground Zero

It was a sad day for America.  We’re now approaching the 6th Anniversary.  Recent, related posts:
Pat Tillman: Accidental "Friendly Fire" or Criminal Intent?
Another Ludicrous Conspiracy Theory - Deserter Arrested

Please vote at RCP (yes, I am marketing for traffic).

Current Affairs, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Deaths from friendly fire continue to plague the Military.  First reports had Pat Tillman dying at the hands of the enemy.  Later was it admitted that he died in a friendly fire incident.  Reports now suggest that there may be more cover-up…is there more to it?

First, here is the latest DoD report on Patrick Tillman’s death (March 26, 2007).

An early unit-level report listed Tillman as being killed by hostile fire, acting DoD Inspector General Thomas Gimble told reporters at a Pentagon news conference.

However, findings of follow-on investigations showed that Tillman was the accidental victim of friendly fire, Gimble said. Yet, Tillman’s parents weren’t told that their son had died in that manner, he said, until a memorial service held weeks after his death.

“What should have happened (is) the moment that they’d suspected fratricide, there should have been a supplemental notification that processed through (the chain of command and to Tillman’s family),” Gimble said.

This situation represents “a failure to follow the directives,” and it’s inexplicable at this point as to why the supplemental notification wasn’t made, Gimble said.

So they said (in March)…But a report released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) now highlights statements by Army medical examiners who were suspicious of the close proximity of the three head shots that killed Tillman.

The doctors _ whose names were blacked out _ said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

Close shots led to the doctors asking for a Criminal Investigations Division action…this was turned down.  Among other information contained in the documents:

_ In his
last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky
comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."

_ Army
attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal
investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire
investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal,
punishments.

_ The three-star general who kept the truth about
Tillman’s death from his family and the public told investigators some
70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn’t recall details of his
actions.

_ No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the
scene _ no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment
struck.

The 3-star General, retired Lt. Gen. Philip R. Kensinger Jr. is about to be demoted for his role in providing misleading information about Tillman’s death.

It is no surprise that Kensinger, 60, is targeted for the most severe punishment. An investigation by the Defense Department’s inspector general found “compelling evidence that Kensinger learned of suspected fratricide well before the memorial service and provided misleading testimony” on that issue. That misrepresentation, the report said, could constitute a “false official statement,” a violation of the Military Code of Justice.

The demotion, if ordered by Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, would reduce Kensinger’s retirement rank to Major General and in turn, reduce his retirement pension and benefits (by about $1000 per month).  Harsh, but probably justified in the circumstances.  I’ve read some accounts on the Internet claiming that Kensinger was being scapegoated.  I frankly doubt that.  And besides, it appears that the real issue may eventually become not that Kensinger misled people about the fratricide, but the circumstances surrounding the fratricide and whether it was a criminal act instead of a flat out battlefield accident.  I guess I’m now interested in knowing who killed Patrick Tillman.

Its an important issue for people to read, so please see RCP.

Also read about "If you really want to support the troops" at Right Truth.

Also check out the discussion on this topic over at MSNBC’s First Read.

Current Affairs, International Issues, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

5 Comments »

Considering that I sat dumbstruck in front of my TV at 8:46am on September 11 and watched the airliners plow through the World Trade Center towers, and then see them crumble, I remain incredulous at the IQ-sharing idiots who claim that it was all a gov’t conspiracy.

Now, thankfully, one of the perpetrators of this travesty has been arrested for being an Army deserter (AWOL from Afghanistan).  This guy Korey Rowe claims to have been honorably discharged. 

A spokeswoman for the 101st Airborne said Rowe is in the system as an Army deserter.

“He was listed as a deserter in 2005,” said Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, public affairs officer for the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). “What we show is that he was absent without leave in June of 2005 and was dropped from the rolls in July 2005. … He has been apprehended for being a deserter.”

Rowe said he believes it’s an administrative error on the part of the military. Nielson-Green conceded that could be the case, but said it was all speculation at this point.

“Anything is possible,” she said. “If this is an administrative error, then that will come out in due process. … It may be as simple as that, or it may be more complicated than that. Errors sometimes happen.”

That alone is a dishonor to all of the soldiers who serve in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere around the world.  That he and his conspirators claim that the attacks were a government conspiracy makes it worse.  They also claim that the Pentagon attack was actually a missile fired by the U.S. government.

All of this crap can be seen on the "Loose Change" website.

Anyone who believes this crap should be disowned (or is it disavowed) by the United States.

See RCP (blog marketing push, please vote)

Current Affairs, Domestic Terrorism, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

READER ALERT: THIS IS A LONG ONE

People are debating the merits of one candidate or another.  It is way too early.  But I have believed for nearly two years that the ‘08 Election would move the country to the middle.  By their extremism, the left and the right are being marginalized.  That is good for America.

To see where this review of my old “position papers” on the re-emergence of the American middle is leading, either read all the way, or scroll down to the end (I hope that you indulge me and read the whole way)…But ask yourself if any of the candidates currently engaged in the two party debates (I think we’re still at a total of 14), truly answers your needs as a candidate for President of the United States in 2009.

UPDATE:  Here is an article in the August 7th Washington Post, Our Chance to Capture the Center, by Martin O’Malley and Harold Ford Jr. [Imagine that!  This post originally written on July 25th].  What I think may be the most important part of this article:

Most Americans don’t care much about partisan politics; they just want practical answers to the problems they face every day. So far, our leading presidential candidates seem to understand that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That’s why they have begun putting forward smart, New Democrat plans to cap and trade carbon emissions, give more Americans the chance to earn their way through college, achieve universal health care through shared responsibility, increase national security by rebuilding our embattled military and enable all Americans who work full time to lift themselves out of poverty.

Clearly, by reproducing words and thoughts written more than two years ago, I expose areas in which I was in error (one of the more glaring mis-steps lies in my hopes that Senator McCain might find his way to leadership, but alas that appears not to be).  That is not my concern.  The key issue here is whether the majority of Americans, those in the middle and yet bridged and often outshouted by the estremes on the left and the right, can find a voice and rise above.

January 9, 2005:  Re-Creating the American Political Middle (reflecting on the November 2004 Presidential Election).  My friend Moon has said the the pendulum of American politics is always swinging.  How right he was.

There are a number of issues, most of them social and political issues that split this country today (among them, but not a total list, are the questions of abortion, the quite different question of partial birth abortion, social security, programs that have been branded as “entitlement” programs, National and Homeland Security, protection of rights and the relation to the Patriot Acts and more than I am going to list right here). The question in my mind is whether or not, in this great “tug of war” to gain “supposed” control of American politics, either of the extreme sides of the social-political continuum actually represents the majority of American minds, or even the minds of others in their own broader political parties. It is my contention that before we get to the 2008 Presidential election, the extreme right, as well as the extreme left, will have become marginalized (meaning that they have, or will, lose constituency).

I believe that we are already starting to see the battle between ultra-conservative and more moderate stances within the Republican party despite the 3 percentage point mandate recorded by GWB (34 electoral votes). While a clear margin of victory, I do not really see it as a landslide or a “mandate.” Further, I question whether GWB has the full and complete loyalty of the entire Republican Party of whether (Republican) nuances will continue to split the party as the months of the second GWB administration pass.

How so? Simply look at the scrutiny that Sen. Specter had to endure in his ascendancy to the Chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee…all because of a comment he made regarding a “litmus test” there was all sorts of concerns that this very senior Republican Senator (is he a liberal or a moderate Republican???) would or could create problems for GWB is he were to nominate pro-life judges to the USSC. How dare he speak his mind, huh? Even if it runs counter to the socially conservative views of the President (and some who are apparently even more conservative than he).

Beyond that, despite the fact that a lot of the debate and disagreement was technical and that the bill eventually passed, the inability to pass the Intelligence Reform bill in the first attempt following essentially a rebellion by Sensenbrenner and Hunter, and Sen. Warner over the question of immigration laws, I believe shows that the President’s political capital isn’t as valuable as he estimated directly after the election.

Finally, I wonder, as I listened to the commentary on Meet the Press this morning, whether some among the less “right” Republicans are beginning to question some of the policy decisions made by this President…look specifically to the question of the War in Iraq and whether the “number of troops on the ground issue” will eventually create a divide. Will the very real question of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal will create lasting questions about policy (and remember that I believe that the detention of terrorists in Guantánamo is clearly indicated and justified, and I believe that often “unconventional means” are needed to get information from terrorists to prevent another attack on U.S. soil).

We are a Nation split by ideology (both political and social). We are a Nation polarized in many ways by these issues.

Its interesting to look back two and a half years.  Now, this was written May 25, 2005.   Re-Creating the Amer. Political Middle - 2

More than once yesterday I heard political commentary to the effect that the “Gang of 14″ had committed political suicide, and that specifically, Senator McCain had lost alot of support of the supposedly “mainstream” Republican party. Could be, but perhaps, its time to think “outside of the box” on this one, instead of evaluating things in the context of today’s political spectrum.

So join me for a brief trip to the future, perhaps some of you will characterize it more as a the “Twilight Zone” but, whatever…

Could it be (he asks rhetorically) that these 14 Senators from the two “mainstream” parties have recognized how radical and marginalized the positions of the Republicans and the Democrats have become…could it be that the actions of the “Gang of 14″ and their actions represent the first step in the creation of a true Third Party in the United States with Senator McCain as the standard bearer?

CONTINUED

I know that when you ask a question like “could it be” the likelihood is that people will answer, “no!” Imagine what an election might be like with a true choice and alternative between the radical right and the liberal left, and there was a candidate who represented the true American middle.

You all should note that while nearly 1/3 of the Americans questioned indicated that they were watching the debate over the filibuster, most believe that the choice of judges should be a bi-partisan decision, and not one made by one party…and further, the majority of people questioned supported the maintaining of the 60 vote requirement for judicial confirmation.

Written May 29, 2005   Re-Creating the Amer. Political Middle - 3

I still maintain the question of whether and to what extent Senator Frist has been weakened by the compromise that avoided the so-called “nuclear option” to beat the filibuster on federal court justice nominations remains…what does this coalition of moderates from the Republican and Democratic party really mean to the current evolution of the American political landscape?Personally, I still look at this as the first in a series of actions that will permit the resurgence of the moderate Republicans in the party, perhaps led by John McCain, perhaps not. But I know that I’ve said it before, the pendulum of political opinion is constantly swinging, it doesn’t stay stationery (for long, if at all)…and sooner or later, I have believed that the radical right and left would become so marginalized that “the middle would rise again.” And, IMO, it won’t take too long before the mainstream American Republican will tire of the posturing of the extreme radical Evangelical right of the party and drive it toward the middle again.

First it was Terri Schiavo…then it was the threat of the nuclear option (of course, if it is/was enacted, whenever the Republicans become the minority party again, they will have to live with the results)…and then we have the continuing havoc over the John Bolton appointment (who I believe will eventually be confirmed)…however…

The Uncompromising Mr. Bush
…There are practical reasons for Bush to lie low on this for a while. On Thursday, the Senate’s GOP majority failed to shut off debate on U.N. ambassador designee John Bolton, postponing a decision until June — and the White House wants that up-or-down vote. In addition to various appropriations bills pending in Congress, the administration is hoping for action on Social Security changes, a sweeping transportation bill and an energy bill this year — all of which depend on Senate action…

Senate Setbacks Test Frist’s Influence
Bush Has Given Difficult Tasks to Him, Analysts Say
…Even his fans have often said that Frist’s knack for running the Senate and passing tough bills falls short of the skills displayed by predecessors Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.). Compounding his problems recently, some say, are the unyielding demands of a person generally seen as Frist’s greatest political benefactor: President Bush…

…Frist had only eight years of Senate experience when he succeeded Lott, and some colleagues felt he was more Bush’s choice than the GOP caucus’s. He was bound to need more White House help than did up-through-the-ranks predecessors such as Lott and Dole, they said, but sometimes Bush seemed to dump tough problems at his door and walk away.

“Bush makes Frist’s job much more difficult than it need be,” said congressional scholar Thomas E. Mann of the Brookings Institution. “Renominating the [filibustered] seven without any consultation or accommodation ensured a major battle on judicial nominees, one Frist could win only by taking down the Senate as a unique institution.” As for Bolton, Mann said: “The Bush White House’s insistence on information-control has poisoned the relationship with Congress. . . . They hung Frist out to dry…”

OK, written just last October 26, 2006,  Moving to the Middle - Apoplexy on the Extremes

Some people believe that in two weeks, the nature of American politics for the next 6 years (or more) will be determined by the midterm elections. Those on the extreme right shudder to think of the “devastation” that will be wrought if the Democrats retake control of either House. Those on the extreme left, essentially fear anything that means that the country will continue to be driven toward the right with all of the trappings of religiosity, faith based initiatives and some deified version of diplomatic and foreign policy. Of course, if what I believe will happen occurs, people like Rush Limbaugh will become apoplectic.The return to the American Middle. Frankly, I am not too sure I care if anyone agrees with my outlook…The point is that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a respected Republican Senator with lots of seniority, made the statement that “…she would not have voted for going to war had she known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” That is significant. Not only because of her seniority, not only because Senator John Warner created this re-evaluation of “tactics” (as expressed by the President), not only becuase Chuck Hagel joined Warner in this pressuring to re-evaluate…but because it shows that some very senior Republican Senators are cognizant of the sentiments of the American Middle.

“Rising Radical Center”
…President Bush’s six-year effort to create an enduring Republican majority based on a right-leaning coalition is on the verge of collapse. The way he tried to create it could have the unintended consequence of opening the way for an alternative majority…

…The Democrats’ dependence on moderate voters and moderate candidates belies Republican claims that a Democratic victory would bring radically liberal politics to Washington. In fact, the first imperative of Democratic congressional leaders, if their party is successful, will be finding policies, ideas and rhetoric to allow the party’s progressives and moderates to get along and govern effectively together…

…This looks to be the year of the radical center. If it is, the Democrats will win. And if they win, their task will be to meet the aspirations of a diverse group of dissatisfied and disappointed Americans…[more]

THIS, IMO, IS A COUNTRY DIVIDED…not by race, not by religion, not by income, but by extreme ideology.

Don’t look now, but I suspect that a chunk of America is about to suffer a severe bout of apoplexy (ἀποπληξία).

It may end up being “none of the above” when we get to the Election of 2008.  It’s not politics as usual…its UNITY ‘08

Unity08 is a diverse group of Americans who believe that neither of today’s parties reflects the aspirations, concerns or will of the majority of Americans. Both parties have polarized and alienated voters. Both are unduly influenced by single-issue groups. Both are excessively dominated by money.

Unity08 is committed to presenting a third presidential ticket and platform – one that addresses the issues and challenges of the 21st
Century – to the American voters in 2008.

We will not waste time pointing fingers. Instead, we will focus on how America can find common ground on critical issues – to give the
overlooked moderate majority a voice and a choice in 2008.

Stranger things have happened…I suspect that if you blink, you may miss the fact the the Great American Middle is about to Re-Emerge.

By the way, I’ve just read an interesting article in the Washington Post (now August 4, 2007) on the shift in partisanship, Partisans Gone Wild written by Anne-Marie Slaughter.

Students of American politics argue that partisan attacks have their own cycles. George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of placing results over party. But after Sept. 11, 2001, the political advantages of take-no-prisoners, call-every-critic-a-traitor patriotism proved irresistible. And the political and media attack industry that has grown up as a result has too much at stake to give in to the calmer, blander beat of bipartisanship.It’s time, then, for a bipartisan backlash.

Check out “Confused Politicians” at Right Truth.  And update on Unity ‘08 from Right Truth, 2008 Politics, Voice Your Opinion

Click on RCP for blog promotion.

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, International Issues, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

Emergency preparedness practitioners ask if we are ready for the next Katrina.  The short answer is a resounding NO!.  The infrastructure, especially for medical and transportation, is not.  What may be worse, is that for many, tragedy of Katrina is not over.

Apparently ignored by many commentaries (commentators?) is the fact that FEMA not only knew of the toxic formaldehyde being emitted from the wood paneling, but after they learned of the issue, they apparently ignored it.

FEMA, since early 2006 has suppressed warnings from its own field workers about health problems experienced by hurricane victims living in government-provided trailers with levels of a toxic chemical 75 times the recommended maximum for U.S. workers, congressional lawmakers said yesterday…

…A trail of e-mails obtained by investigators shows that the agency’s lawyers rejected a proposal for systematic testing of the levels of potentially cancer-causing formaldehyde gas in the trailers, out of concern that the agency would be legally liable for any hazards or health problems…

On the eve of yesterday’s (July 19th) hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
FEMA reversed course on the issue and said it has asked federal health
officials to help conduct a new assessment of conditions in trailers
under prolonged use. But revelation of the agency’s earlier posture –
in documents withheld by FEMA until they were subpoenaed by Congress –
attracted harsh bipartisan criticism.

FEMA was blamed for the inaction (or late action) in New Orleans.  Mayor Nagin was blamed for ineptness.  Mike Brown, after being lauded by President Bush ("Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job!") was then fired.  This revelation shows premeditated negligence.  Everyone seems to be missing the fact that Mr. Duct Tape, David Paulison (now the FEMA director) was at the helm when this travesty occurred.  If anyone forgot, Paulison was not only Mike Brown’s replacement, but was the same guy
who as a Homeland Security official, urged Americans to stock up on
duct tape and plastic sheeting in 2003 to protect against a biological
or chemical attack.  Here’s the official White House release on the subject if you’ve forgotten or don’t believe it.

Of course, it is Paulison who was apologizing to the trailer people for FEMA’s poor judgment.

"This agency made the best decisions it could with the information it had," Paulison testified. "Now we know we have to do something different than we’ve done in the past."

So the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is now probing the fact that FEMA either withheld or surpressed evdience that they knew that the trailers in which they were housing Katrina and Rita refugees were toxic and were making these people suffer more than they already had!  Over 80,000 families are still living in FEMA trailers today, nearly two years since the disaster.

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.): the documents "expose
an official policy of premeditated ignorance…senior
officials in Washington didn’t want to know what they already knew,
because they didn’t want the legal and moral responsibility to do what
they knew had to be done."

Rep. Thomas Davis (R-Va.): FEMA "mischaracterized the scope and purpose" of its own
actions. "FEMA’s reaction to the problem was deliberately stunted to
bolster the agency’s litigation position…FEMA’s primary
concerns were legal liability and public relations, not human health
and safety."

This isn’t a partisan or political issue people!  This is a serious question of whether not the United States government, whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency and its Director "Mr. Duct Tape" are ready to react and respond appropriately in the event of another natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina or Rita, or in the event that terrorists strike in America’s Heartland.

Let me assure you.  My opinion is that we are not prepared.  More importantly, the opinions of many disaster response and emergency preparedness officials that I know is that we are not prepared.  We are no better off than we were back in August 2005.

See "Katrina and Emergency Preparedness" written on August 31, 2005

This doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of interoperable communications and related issues.

And if it wasn’t enough, Katrina victims are now targets of widespread fraud (see comment from Debbie below):

Federal agents investigating widespread fraud after the Gulf Coast hurricanes in 2005 are sifting through more than 11,000 potential cases, a backlog that could take years to resolve.

Authorities have fielded so many reports of people cheating aid programs, swindling contracts and scamming charities after the hurricanes that Homeland Security inspectors, who typically police disaster aid scams, have been "swamped," says David Dugas, the US attorney in Baton Rouge.

Check out Right Truth, The lesson from Katrina.  This post talks about taking personal responsibility.  I agree that we all must be individually prepared.  Where I disagree is that I believe strongly that the government’s responsibility is to ensure the ability of the infrastructure to respond.  And when it comes to relief efforts that put hurricane refugees in toxic trailers for "temporary housing" and ignore or cover-up their knowledge of the situation, the government should be held responsible.

Having said that, however, it can only be concluded that many people are simply stupid.  A recent poll by USA Today showed that:

• one-third of U.S. coastal residents in areas vulnerable to hurricanes
  say they won’t obey orders to evacuate if a major storm threatens

• almost two-thirds of New Orleans residents don’t know the location of an evacuation shelter

• More than half of the New Orleans residents have not prearranged with their family where to meet
  after a storm (more than 66% in other states)

More information?  These people must have short memories or are simply, well…simple.

MANY UNPREPARED FOR HURRICANES

Harvard University surveyed Americans living in coastal areas and found that many remain unprepared for a major hurricane almost two years after Katrina devastated New Orleans:

Would not evacuate:
New Orleans: 14%
Other areas: 32%

Don’t know the location of a shelter in their area:
New Orleans: 61%
Other areas: 38%

Family has not agreed where to meet in case of a hurricane:
New Orleans: 66%
Other areas: 51%

Rate overall response by government and volunteer agencies to major hurricanes in past three years as good or excellent:

New Orleans: 19%

Other areas: 57%

Source: Harvard School of Public Health survey of 5,046 adults in hurricane high-risk areas, June 18-July 10. Margin of error: ±2.6 percentage points.

Storm, actively engaged in disaster response policy issues and programs.

Blog marketing, "click it" at RCP.

Current Affairs, Federal Policy, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

Yesterday I came across something that prompts me to offer this opinion on blogging, and how your "opinions" could get you into legal trouble.  In an attempt at humor, a blogger of some "repute" and a "wannabee" political journalist and commentator, called a well-known news personality a "bimbo."  This well regarded college graduate was compared to Monica Lewinsky and to another woman who is apparently having an affair with the Mayor of Los Angeles…all to make a partisan political statement.

Now, I am not a lawyer (I’d welcome comments from attorneys that have insight and can contribute value on the subject).  I am, however, very cautious about what I write here on this blog.  And I write this blog anonymously on purpose to permit me to offer opinions that might not be "politically correct" given my "day job."  That’s my business, and mine alone. 

I would think, though, that it was good common practice is to avoid offending people, avoid calling people names (especially public figures and those that you don’t know), and to avoid crossing lines that you think are covered under the heading of "well, its my opinion."

Here, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation is their Bloggers’ FAQ -  Online Defamation Law - 

What is defamation?

   
Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone’s reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.

What are the elements of a defamation claim?

   
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

      
1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
      
2. a false statement of fact;
      
3. that is understood as

             
        a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
             
        b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.

      
4. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

One other snippet that I will provide, and then you can read the rest for your own information.

Can my opinion be defamatory?

   
No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it’s likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas’ new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It’s my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

There is no way, in my opinion of course, that calling a well-known personality a bimbo, and then comparing that person to another woman who is having an affair, can be seen as flattering.  In fact, here are a few definitions of the word "bimbo" taken from dictionary websites.

- derog, slang
      A young woman who is physically attractive, but empty-headed.

- an offensive term for an attractive woman who is regarded as unintelligent and shallow 

- Slang  A woman regarded as vacuous or as having an exaggerated interest in her sexual appeal.

Well, you get my drift.  Truthfully, I alerted the lady who was called a bimbo to the questionable post.  Maybe the "wannabee" journalist will be contacted, maybe she won’t.

Current Affairs, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Even though I’ve made the point recently, for the record the Wall Street Journal’s Robert Block wrote that we may be witnessing a shift in tactics by Osama bin Laden’s planners, who, beginning with the first attempt on the Twin Towers in 1993, tended to favor spectacular, coordinated assaults. More specifically, security analysts fear the two styles of terrorist attacks could be merged.

The possible tactical shift — involving seemingly untrained operatives using simple weapons and hasty planning — raises difficult questions for security services, especially regarding resource allocation.

Should they prepare to detect and disrupt only major catastrophic attacks? Or shadow every possible extremist in the hope of pre-empting more likely attacks on, for example, shopping malls using a homemade gasoline bomb or legally purchased firearms?

See previous posts on terrorist tactics:

Topline Threat Analysis: Terrorist Attacks in the US?
Terror in the UK Continues - Glasgow Airport Attacked by Flaming Cherokee
London Terror Plot UPDATE: IEDs Coming to a Town Near You - The New Domestic Terror Threat

Unlike the long planned attacks on September 11, 2001, what was learned in Iraq has shown life in the UK attacks of July 7, 2005 and the London/Glasgow attempts earlier this month.  I have further projected that the tactics of the IRA could well also be adopted by the al Qaeda minions.  This means that prediction and preparation for any possible attack becomes one of trying to find a missing piece to a jigsaw puzzle.

CHANGE IN APPROACH

•  The Change: Security officials worry a new model of Islamist terror is emerging that relies on hasty planning, simple weapons and minimal training.

•  The Problem: Such plots are tougher to track and stop than more ambitious ones.

•  The Challenge: Security services have to decide the most effective way to concentrate finite resources to minimize the danger.

The shift in tactics leads to quick-hit strikes that require limited planning, preparation, or training.  These may not yield the spectacular results of the World Trade Center attacks, but they can kill a lot of people, destroy a lot of property and achieve the goals of a terrorist attack…create terror.  Because of their simplicity, such attacks are much more difficult to detect or prevent.

How to allocate resources (money, manpower, effort to detect and disrupt) becomes the broader question.  The adoption of a two-pronged, and parallel, strategy by al Qaeda; to enlist new cells of local Muslims to join the jihad and kill infidels in anyway possible; continue the longer-range planning for spectacular attack complicates U.S. security strategies.

If al Qaeda adopts the hit and run tactics of the insurgents in Iraq or the street terror approaches of the Irish Republican Army, we will be facing a seriously exacerbated security picture with a large, but in many ways finite budget.

Hit the RCP button.

Current Affairs, Domestic Terrorism, Federal Policy, Iraq, National Security, Opinions Sphere: Related Content

No Comments »

Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. can blame the inaction of the federal government all he wishes, but New Haven Ct. has gone beyond the travesty of santuary cities.  By issuing the Elm City Residency Card, a multi-use card available to all residents, regardless of immigration status, this city has given rights to people who by definition are breaking the laws of the U.S.

Starting Tuesday, New Haven will offer illegal immigrants municipal identification cards that allow access to city services such as libraries and a chance to open bank accounts.

More bothersome news:

The so-called Elm City Resident Card has drawn boiling condemnation from outsider activists but overwhelming support inside city limits — click here, here and here for background on the card, introduced by Mayor DeStefano.

In a 25 to 1 vote Monday, aldermen approved acceptance of $250,359 in private funds from the First City Fund Corporation to support the mayor’s plan. The Elm City Resident Card, originally designed to help undocumented immigrants avoid getting robbed or assaulted, will be a combination of identification, debit card, library card, and a way to pay the parking meter, for all city residents young and old. The city plans to roll out the new cards in July.

Group files FOI request for ID card info
Southern Connecticut Immigration Reform will invoke the FOI to test the city’s pledge to protect the privacy of the cardholders…contends the cards violate federal laws against aiding illegal immigration…

Attorneys for the city feel the IDs are protected under FOI exemptions governing public safety and privacy, but Colleen Murphy, an attorney with the FOI Commission, does not know of any specific exemption they "would squarely fit into."

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many victims of September 11 caem from Connecticut, or still New Haven.  Well here is an indication of the memories of the people this action disrespects.  Shameful!

Express your outrage by clicking on this post at RCP.

Current Affairs, Domestic Terrorism, Federal Policy, National Security, Opinions