|
December, 2005 Archives
The Path of Fiscal Irresponsibility
U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow issued a warning: if Congress doesn't raise our national debt limit, the government will run out of cash in two months.
In a letter to Senate leaders Thursday, Snow said the statutory debt limit imposed by Congress of 8.184 trillion dollars would be reached in mid-February and the government would then lose its borrowing power.
"At that time, unless the debt limit is raised or the Treasury Department takes authorized extraordinary actions, we will be unable to continue to finance government operations," said the letter, seen by AFP.
Snow warned that even if the Treasury took "all available prudent and legal actions" to avoid breaching the ceiling, "we anticipate that we can finance government operations no longer than mid-March".
"Accordingly, I am writing to request that Congress raise the statutory debt limit as soon as possible."
The Republican-led Congress last voted to increase the debt limit in mid-November 2004, despite opposition from Democrats who demanded the free-spending federal government tighten its belt instead.
The US debt limit sparked bitter partisan battles in the mid-1990s between a Republican-dominated Congress and the Democratic administration of president Bill Clinton, leading to shutdowns of the federal government.
Once the US government hits the ceiling, it comes under threat of defaulting on its debts and can lose the ability to raise future credit on the capital markets.
Snow underlined that the "full faith and credit of the United States" was a unique selling point on the markets.
"A failure to increase the debt limit in a timely manner would threaten this unique and important position," he wrote in his letter.
Raise the debt limit? That means we're going to try to borrow even more money from our biggest creditor, the Chinese government. The fiscally irresponsible decisions made by this administration over the past four years are starting to take a serious toll. Raising the debt limit is a short-term fix for our financial problems: it's like handing a heroin addict a small dose of the drug to "tide him over." But the dose will be used up and the addiction to spending remains. And what happens when even the Chinese won't lend to us any more?
Posted on December 30, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
The Rise and Fall of Jack Abramoff
The Washington Post lays out the story of the rise and fall of uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff whose legal woes could bring down a number of prominent politicians.
Abramoff is the central figure in what could become the biggest congressional corruption scandal in generations. Justice Department prosecutors are pressing him and his lawyers to settle fraud and bribery allegations by the end of this week, sources knowledgeable about the case said. Unless he reaches a plea deal, he faces a trial Jan. 9 in Florida in a related fraud case.
A reconstruction of the lobbyist's rise and fall shows that he was an ingenious dealmaker who hatched interlocking schemes that exploited the machinery of government and trampled the norms of doing business in Washington -- sometimes for clients but more often to serve his desire for wealth and influence. This inside account of Abramoff's career is drawn from interviews with government officials and former associates in the lobbying shops of Preston Gates & Ellis LLP and Greenberg Traurig LLP; thousands of court and government records; and hundreds of e-mails obtained by The Washington Post, as well as those released by Senate investigators.
*****
Alan K. Simpson (R), the former Wyoming senator who was in Washington during the last big congressional scandal -- the Abscam FBI sting in the late 1970s and early 1980s, in which six House members and one senator were convicted -- said the Abramoff case looks bigger. Simpson said he recently rode in a plane with one of Abramoff's attorneys, who told him: "There are going to be guys in your former line of work who are going to be taken down."
Dozens of lawmakers -- who were showered with trips, sports and concert tickets, drinks and dinners -- are returning campaign contributions from Abramoff and his clients and calling him a fraud and a crook.
Burns, one of half a dozen legislators under scrutiny by the federal Abramoff task force, returned $150,000 in campaign contributions this month.
"This Abramoff guy is a bad guy," Burns told a Montana television station. "I hope he goes to jail and we never see him again. I wish he'd never been born, to be right honest with you."
The article details such tidbits such as how Abramoff defrauded Native American tribes for lobbying services, while calling his clients derogatory names behind their backs and boasting of how stupid they were. It also describes how he and his free-spending team spread their money around Congress to get votes on pet projects.
It's a seedy story that may have a very big finish. The rumor around Washington is that he's cut a deal with prosecutors and is ready to testify against some very prominent people. And who is one of Abramoff's closest associates? That would be embattled former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).
Posted on December 29, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
The NSA Data-Mining Program
The New York Times reports that the breadth and depth of the NSA's warrantless spying program is much greater than was originally reported.
The National Security Agency has traced and analyzed large volumes of telephone and Internet communications flowing into and out of the United States as part of the eavesdropping program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to hunt for evidence of terrorist activity, according to current and former government officials.
The volume of information harvested from telecommunication data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the officials said. It was collected by tapping directly into some of the American telecommunication system's main arteries, they said.
*****
What has not been publicly acknowledged is that N.S.A. technicians, besides actually eavesdropping on specific conversations, have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects. Some officials describe the program as a large data-mining operation.
The current and former government officials who discussed the program were granted anonymity because it remains classified.
Bush administration officials declined to comment on Friday on the technical aspects of the operation and the N.S.A.'s use of broad searches to look for clues on terrorists. Because the program is highly classified, many details of how the N.S.A. is conducting it remain unknown, and members of Congress who have pressed for a full Congressional inquiry say they are eager to learn more about the program's operational details, as well as its legality.
The phone companies cooperated with this data mining operation, in which the NSA basically jacked into the main phone and email lines and eavesdropped on huge numbers of communications, hoping to find some kind of usable intel. The more we learn about what Bush and the NSA have been doing, the more disturbing it becomes. It's starting to look like that proposed illegal data mining program ("Total Information Awareness") thought up by convicted Watergate felon Admiral Poindexter has been put into service after all -- without first consulting Congress or the American people.
Posted on December 26, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Dick Cheney and the iPod
Most of us are used to seeing teenagers and 20-somethings bobbing their heads to music only they can hear through their iPods. But Vice president Dick Cheney is also an iPod fanatic, who insists that his digital music player be charged and ready to play his favorite tunes at all times. No exceptions, no excuses. Woe betide any staffer who lets the vice-presidential ipod battery run dry. The Independent (U.K) explains:
The vice president is an iPod fan, and keeping it charged is a priority for his staff.
Normally that isn't an issue, even when he's flying around the world. Air Force II is equipped with outlets in each row of seats.
But when Dick Cheney was traveling home overnight Wednesday from his diplomatic mission, most of the outlets went on the fritz.
Working passengers began lining up their laptops to share the power from a couple of working outlets — particularly the reporters who urgently needed to prepare their articles to transmit during a quick refueling stop in England.
But when Cheney said his iPod needed to be recharged, it took precedent above all else and dominated one precious outlet for several hours. The vice president's press staff intervened so a reporter could use the outlet for 15 minutes to charge a dead laptop, but then the digital music device was plugged back in.
That way, Cheney got his press coverage and his music, too
But what music is he listening to? Does he rock out to "My Sharona" by The Knack, as does President Bush? Or does he prefer more mellow tunes, like big band music? Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted on December 22, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Pope Benedict's Interesting Hat
Well, here's something you don't see everyday: the current Pope looking suspiciously like Kris Kringle. Today, Pope Benedict XVI arrived for his weekly audience in St. Peter's Square wearing a red cape and red hat trimmed with ermine. To onlookers, it appeared that Santa Claus had just arrived. His bold move sent historians scurrying to figure out the name of the mysterious chapeau and its Medieval origins.
The German-born Pope delighted the crowds at his weekly audience by wearing a red velvet cap trimmed with white fur along with his scarlet cape as he drove around the square.
A Vatican insider said: "The Pope was told it was cold outside and he said he had just the thing.
"He came out holding the hat and said he would wear it. He even joked that it made him look like Father Christmas."
The traditional hat, known as a camauro, used to be worn by popes in the Middle Ages to keep their heads warm.
In modern times only John XXIII, who was pope from 1958 to 1963, was regularly seen in one.
Pope Benedict changed into his more familiar white skull cap when he arrived at the podium, where he told a packed square that Christmas was a time to remember the true roots of the faith.
Looking over the crowd towards a 100ft Christmas tree, the Pope said that Christmas lights adorning cities and houses around the world should "remind us of another light, invisible to the eyes but not to the heart".
The Pope has already shown a taste for traditional papal dress, preferring delicate red slippers for daily wear rather than the robust walking shoes favoured by his predecessor, Pope John Paul II.
Pope Benedict is definitly showing signs of breaking out of the mold: he's a intelligent man who appears to be much more media savvy than many gave him credit for. We love Santa Claus, and now he looks like Santa Claus. It's most interesting.
Posted on December 21, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
The NSA Spying Scandal Deepens
The New York Timesreports that the NSA Eavesdropping scandal just got bigger: the NSA eavesdropped on phone conversations which took place entirely within the United States, clearly violating the secret program's own rules which required that one person on the phone conversation be outside of the United States. So not only did the program break the law, it broke its own rules for engagement.
The Bush administration has not released the guidelines that the N.S.A. uses in determining who is suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and may be a target under the program. General Hayden said the determination was made by operational people at the agency and "must be signed off by a shift supervisor," with the process closely scrutinized by officials at the agency, the Justice Department and elsewhere.
But questions about the legal and operational oversight of the program last year prompted the administration to suspend aspects of it temporarily and put in place tighter restrictions on the procedures used to focus on suspects, said people with knowledge of the program. The judge who oversees the secret court that authorizes intelligence warrants - and which has been largely bypassed by the program - also raised concerns about aspects of the program.
In a related story, the ACLU has filed Freedom of Information Act requests after learning that the FBI has been spying on groups such as PETA (animal rights activists), Greenpeace and peace movements.
To expose FBI monitoring of political and religious groups in the United States, the ACLU filed FOIAs in 20 states on behalf of over 150 organizations and individuals. Today the ACLU made public the latest documents obtained in the project which confirm that the FBI is using counterterrorism resources to monitor and infiltrate advocacy groups including PETA, Greenpeace, the American Arab Anti Defamation Committee the ACLU itself. www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html
Shouldn't the NSA, the CIA and the FBI be tracking Osama bin Laden and his henchmen? Or trying to make our borders more secure, as John Kerry kept saying during the last election? Apparently, they're more worried about PETA's campaign to keep Jennifer Lopez from using fur in her new fashion collection than protecting us from terrorists sneaking in across the porous Texas-Mexico border.
Posted on December 20, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Bush Admits He Ordered Warrantless Eavesdropping on American Citizens
In his weekly radio address today, President Bush admitted that he ordered the National Security Agency (or "No Such Agency" as it is widely known) to spy on American citizens without first obtaining a warrant. Aware of the furor caused by the New York Times' breaking of the story yesterday, Bush had the address videotaped and played on TV today. Using Richard Nixon's famous justification for his actions ("If the President does it, by definition it's not illegal") or the "I'm the Emperor, So Shut Up Defense" (as others prefer to call it), Bush defended his actions and said that he will not stop ordering the warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens.
Bush said his authority to approve what he called a "vital tool in our war against the terrorists" came from his constitutional powers as commander in chief. He said that he has personally signed off on reauthorizations more than 30 times.
"The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties," Bush said. "And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the president of the United States."
But this time the fear tactic isn't working and the legal basis for his issuing such orders appears nonexistent.
James Bamford, author of two books on the NSA, said the program could be problematic because it bypasses a special court set up by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to authorize eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.
"I didn't hear him specify any legal right, except his right as president, which in a democracy doesn't make much sense," Bamford said in an interview. "Today, what Bush said is he went around the law, which is a violation of the law — which is illegal."
The response from Republicans and Democrats to the presiden't shocking revelation has been heated, to put it mildly.
I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., told The Associated Press.
Added Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.: "The Bush administration seems to believe it is above the law."
Here are some other initial responses to the new eavesdropping scandal:
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.): "There is no doubt that this is inappropriate."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Member of both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees: [This program is] the most significant thing I have heard in my 12 years [in the Senate]" ...."How can I go out, how can any member of this body go out, and say that under the Patriot Act we protect the rights of American citizens if, in fact, the president is not going to be bound by the law?"
Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.):"If we needed a wake-up call about the need for adequate civil liberties protections to be written into our laws...this is that wake-up call."
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.): "They are saying, 'Trust us, we are following the law.' Give me a break. Across the country and across the political spectrum, no one is buying it anymore. There is no accountability. There is no oversight.... This is Big Brother run amok."
What makes this all the more bizarre is that under the Patriot Act a special court was set up to approve government warrant requests in terrorism cases. According to The Washington Post, that court routinely approves almost all governent warrant requests almost immediately. There are no delays in getting warrants in cases of national security. So what is the real reason for this secret directive to spy on U.S. citizens without first obtaining a warrant? When that question is answered in the upcoming hearings on the matter promised by Senator Specter, then we'll know what this program was really designed to do and who was targeted.
Posted on December 17, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Revelation of Surveillance of U.S. Citizens Spurs Patriot Act Defeat
The New York Times reported today that President Bush personally authorized spying on U.S. citizens without any warrant or evidence of wrongdoing. Nearly a dozen officials spoke to the Times' reporters on condition of anonymity because they were so concerned that the spying on U.S. citizens was illegal. These aren't terror suspects or members of Al-Qaeda. These are just average, American citizens accused of no crime.
Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.
The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.
"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."
Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight.
This story reverberated around Washington, D.C. today and was a factor in the Senate's rejection of the extension of the Patriot Act today. Unable to muster the 60 votes necessary to stop a filibuster, the Senators who were pushing to renew the widely-criticized law went down in defeat, 52-47.
The Patriot Act was rushed into law after 9/11 when everyone was terrified. Most congressmen admitted that they didn't read the bill: the document is as big as a phonebook, yet was ready to go within days after the tragedy. Most of the senators who voted against renewing the Patriot Act suggested that Congress take its time and carefully review the voluminous law to ensure that the rights of innocent Americans are protected. Which is exactly what should have been done before it was passed into law.
Posted on December 16, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Novak Says Bush Knows Who Leaker Is
Conservative columnist Robert Novak declared in a speech this week that President Bush knows who leaked Valerie Plame's name to reporters, blowing her cover as an undercover agent.
Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who has repeatedly declined to discuss his role in disclosing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, said in a speech this week that he is certain President Bush knows who his mystery administration source is.
Novak said Tuesday that the public and press should be asking the president about the official rather than pressing journalists who received the information.
Novak also suggested that the administration official who gave him the information is the same person who mentioned Plame and her CIA role to Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward in the summer of 2003
"I'm confident the president knows who the source is," Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, N.C., on Tuesday, according to an account published yesterday in the Raleigh News & Observer. "I'd be amazed if he doesn't." "So I say, don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is," Novak said.
That little bombshell is just now winding its way through the media outlets. One has to wonder what's fueling Novak's sudden willingness to chat about Plamegate and his sudden willingness to point the finger at the White House. Because telling journalists to "bug the President" about revealing the source is not exactly going to endear him to the Bush inner circle.
Posted on December 15, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Plamegate Resumes
The Associated Press reports on the latest twist in Plamegate. This weekend, Time reporter Viveca Novak wrote a piece describing how she had to testify in Plamegate. According to Ms. Novak, for almost a year Rove's lawyer knew quite well that Rove disclosed Plame's name to a reporter because she told him so.
It wasn't until Time's Matt Cooper was under intense pressure from investigators to reveal his source that Rove, Bush's top political adviser, corrected his grand jury testimony, telling Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald of the conversation he said he'd forgotten.
The timeline of the Rove camp's early knowledge emerged Sunday in a first-person account by Time reporter Viveca Novak.
Novak said she passed along the information to Rove attorney Robert Luskin when he said, in effect, that "Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem. He was not a source for Matt," Novak wrote. "I responded instinctively, thinking he was trying to spin me."
Novak said she told Luskin "something like, 'Are you sure about that? That's not what I hear around Time.' He looked surprised and very serious" and at the end of their discussion that day said, "Thank you. This is important."
Novak said the conversation with Luskin occurred anywhere from January 2004 to May 2004; she thinks it was perhaps in March.
It was not until October 2004 — sometime between five and nine months after Novak's conversation with Luskin — that Rove disclosed his conversation with Cooper to the prosecutor.
The upshot of all this is that Karl Rove changed his story to the grand jury when he suddenly "remembered" that after all, he did discuss Joe Wilson's wife Valerie Plame with Time reporter Matthew Clark. And his attorney knew during most of 2004, while he was spinning away to the press saying something totally different. Patrick Fitzgerald is a methodical guy. He appears to be talking to everyone and anyone remotely involved in the case. And every time he turns up a new witness, it looks a bit bleaker for Mr. Rove.
Bottom line: Rove's story is coming unraveled, and he is far from being safe from being indicted.
Posted on December 12, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Abu Ghraib Photos In Time for the Holidays?
It looks like those classified photos from Abu Ghraib prison may be made
available just in time for Christmas.
The 144 photographs and four videos, which have been seen by New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh, are alleged to contain photographs of U.S. servicemembers involved in raping detainees, possibly underage. The photos and videos are in addition to an earlier set of photographs already released.
The Bush Administration has successfully blocked their release, first saying they needed time to anonymize those engaged in illicit behavior, and then seeking a permanent block, arguing the photos could endanger troops and civilians overseas.
The ACLU sued to have the photos released under the Freedom of Information Act, and won the last round in court.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the Defense Department must release the images and videos, saying that suppressing them would only create more intrigue about their contents. The Department then appealed, and was granted an extension through Dec. 15. If their appeal is rejected, the Bush Administration could take the case to the Supreme Court.
"Suppression of information is the surest way to cause its significance to grow and persist," Judge Alvin wrote. "Our struggle to prevail must be without sacrificing the transparency and accountability of government and military officials. These are the values [the Freedom of Information Act] was intended to advance, and they are at the very heart of the values for which we fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is a risk that the enemy will seize upon the publicity of the photographs and seek to use such publicity as a pretext for enlistments and violent acts. But the education and debate that such publicity will foster will strengthen our purpose and, by enabling such deficiencies as may be perceived to be debated and corrected, show our strength as a vibrant and functioning democracy to be emulated."
These are the horrible photos and videos that even Donald Rumsfeld said were "revolting" and that if they were ever released it would cause a firestorm of controversy. Now the judge in the case said the ruling could come anytime after December 15th. And it's not going to be pretty.
Posted on December 9, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
New Study Finds Internet Makes People Feel Empowered Politically
A new study (PDF file) done by the University of Southern California's Annenberg School Center For the Digital Future concludes that people feel increasingly politically empowered by the Internet:
Internet users say that going online creates
political clout.
The comprehensive study of the impact of online technology conducted by the USC
Annenberg School Center for the Digital Future found that for the first time, the number of users who say that the Internet can be used to gain political power has increased.
In 2005, 39.8 percent of Internet users agree that going online can give people more
political power -- up from 27.3 percent in the previous study. And, 61.7 percent of respondents - - Internet users and non-users alike -- now agree that going online has become important to political campaigns.
"We are now seeing tangible evidence of the increasing role of the Internet in political
decision-making," said Jeffrey I. Cole, director of the USC Annenberg School Center for the
Digital Future. "The Internet’s growing role in political decision-making cannot be
underestimated.
"More than three-quarters of users who went online for political campaign information
sought insight regarding issues and candidates about which they were undecided," Cole said.
"Clearly, the Internet’s role in the American political process will continue to grow, and it could
have a significant impact during the Congressional elections of 2006."
*****
"Notably, the largest percentage of these users sought campaign information on
traditional media Web sites," said Cole. "A much smaller group used information placed online
by the candidates." (39.5 percent to traditional media sites; 27.1 percent to candidates' sites)
Of users who went online to seek campaign information, 91.1 percent sought information
about issues or candidates they supported; 77.4 percent also sought information about issues and
candidates about which they were undecided.
Even though it's a slow-loading pdf file, this one is worth a read. The study found the 60.4% of users agree that by using the Internet, people can gain a greater understanding of politics. It's clear that the Internet is going to have an even greater impact in future elections. Politicians who are considering running in 2006 or 2008 would do well to read this study. Because very few politicians actually have a thorough grasp of how to run a grassroots web campaign, even though many think that they do.
[Via Daily Kos]
Posted on December 8, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
A Sea of Red Ink in Iraq
Today, decorated war hero and congressman John P. Murtha (D - Pennsylvania), the ranking member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, responded to President Bush about the war in Iraq:
MURTHA: Twenty years it’s going to take to settle this thing. The American people is not going to put up with it; can’t afford it. We have spent $277 billion. That’s what’s been appropriated for this operation. We have $50 billion sitting on the table right now in our supplemental, or bridge fund we call it, in the Appropriations Committee. They’re going to ask for another $100 billion next year.
*****
QUESTION: Can we come back to the $100 billion? You said that you expect the military to ask for $100 billion. Where are you getting that figure?
MURTHA: Where I get all my figures: the military. Let me tell you -- they didn't ask for this $50 billion. We put it in. We talked to them about where it ought to be.
When I visited the three bases that I talk about, which were down south, I came back and I said to the military: Go to Iraq and tell me what shortage you have there.
They sent the Marine Corps over, the highest level people in the Army over, they came back with -- what was it, $8 billion?
STAFF: Yes, sir.
MURTHA: $8 billion in requests for equipment they need today. Our equipment is absolutely run out. We're running our Bradleys a thousand miles a month, where it used to be a thousand miles a year. So there's substantial rehabilitation that has to be done.
Another $100 billion? This is becoming increasingly unpalatable to fiscal conservatives, whether they are Republican, Democrat, or Independent. A simple cost benefit analysis shows us going deeper and deeper into the hole to continue a war in which we are viewed as occupiers, not liberators, according to numerous polls of the Iraqi people. The oil fields of Iraq are not pumping the oil they should be because of the insurgency. This war is not paying for itself by any stretch of the imagination. This is a disgraceful situation for a so-called Republican president to be in.
Posted on December 7, 2005
Permalink | Blogs linking to this post: BlogPulse | IceRocket | Technorati
| |
Condi's World Tour Hits a Snag
The Financial Times reports on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's world tour, which has been anything but pleasant for her. The world press continues to fire questions at her about the revelation that the United States has secret prisons all over the world and that suspects are being sent to other countries secretly for questioning and/or torture. The polite word the U.S. uses is "rendering." Everyone else calls it "kidnapping." Condi doesn't seem to be able to quell the growing discontent over the revelations.
In her response to allegations about the Central Intelligence Agency’s activities in Europe, the US secretary of state failed to get to grips with European perceptions that President George W. Bush's America is a wild, brutal place that contrasts with the peaceful, law-abiding EU.
Ms Rice's statement this week included three big legal arguments, all of which fell far short of bringing the debate to a close.
She spent most of her time justifying the US use of "rendition" - transporting suspects from third countries without the say-so of a judge - in what US officials say is the first official acknowledgement of the practice since September 11.
"There have long been many… cases where for some reason the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect and traditional extradition is not a good option," she said. "In those cases the local government can make the sovereign choice to cooperate in a rendition. Such renditions are permissible under international law and are consistent with the responsibilities of those governments to protect their citizens."
She added that the US and other countries had used renditions for decades, and that the French government's abduction of the terrorist Carlos the Jackal in the 1990s was judged as legal by the European Commission of Human Rights.
But the problem is that to say that some renditions have been held to be legal is not the same as proving that all such abductions are legal. As extra-judicial measures, renditions are legally controversial by definition. In addition, one principal feature of Carlos the Jackal's case was that he was put on trial - unlike many of the US's detainees.
One former CIA official noted on CNN today that "rendering" a suspect to some other country for questioning is a useless tactic. Once a prisoner is out of the U.S., he said we have lost control over the interrogation and that it is unlikely that some former Eastern bloc country is going to turn over reliable intelligence to us, assuming they learn anything at all.
There is the PR aspect of all of this: with the gross mismanagement of the war in Iraq, the last thing we need is more bad PR abroad. It is no secret that the intelligence agencies of most countries use some unorthodox methods to fight terrorism -- and always have. But this latest fiasco exposes even more of the Bush administration's flawed plans for fighting terrorism. If we're learning so much from prisoners at these secret prisons, then why is Iraq such a disaster? Why is Afghanistan slowly being infiltrated again by the Taliban, while heroin production finances interests inimical to the United States?
There is also that little issue of human rights. That concept seems to have been jettisoned, right along with the so-called "Patriot Act."
Posted on December 6, 2005
Permanent link to this entry.
| |
Iraqi VP Disputes Bush's Assessment of Iraqi Military
Apparently, Iraqi Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer didn't get his faxed copy of the talking points memo for today. In a huge embarassment to the Bush administration, Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer today said that the training of Iraqi security forces has suffered a big "setback" in the last six months. He declared that the army and other armed forces are being used for private political purposes and to settle private scores. In other words, they're being used as a private goon squad instead of as a unit to fight terrorists. The Associated Press
reports:
Al-Yawer disputed contentions by U.S. officials, including President Bush, that the training of security forces was gathering speed, resulting in more professional troops.
Bush has said the United States will not pull out of Iraq until Iraq's own forces can maintain security. In a speech last week, he said Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of securing the country.
Al-Yawer, a Sunni moderate, said he agreed the United States cannot pull out now because "there will be a huge vacuum," leaving Iraq in danger of falling into civil war. In particular, armed Shiite militias in the south might try to incite war if U.S.-led coalition forces leave, he said in an interview with The Associated Press and a U.S. newspaper at a conference here.
"I wish it were that simple," he said of calls to set a timetable for withdrawal or a drawdown.
But al-Yawer said recent allegations that Interior Ministry security forces -- dominated by Shiites -- have tortured Sunni detainees were evidence that many forces are increasingly politicized and sectarian. Some of the recently trained Iraqi forces focus on settling scores and other political goals rather than maintaining security, he said.
In addition, some Iraqi military commanders have been dismissed for political reasons, rather than judged on merit, he said.
He said the army -- also dominated by Shiites -- is conducting raids against villages and towns in Sunni and mixed areas of Iraq, rather than targeting specific insurgents -- a tactic he said reminded many Sunnis of Saddam Hussein-era raids.
"Saddam used to raid villages," using security forces, he said. "This is not the way to do it."
He had a lot more to say: he thinks that the Iraqi army will be used to keep Sunni voters from the polls on December 15th, he said that there was intimidation and voter fraud in the October 15th constitutional referendum, and that the entire country is going to fall apart the minute U.S. troops leave.
Did he sleep through the orientation meeting run by Chalabi? Someone has got to explain to this guy that this isn't the way we do things. He's not supposed to tell the truth, he's supposed to regurgitate the talking points over and over to the press. Look for this guy to announce his retirement "to spend more time with his family" very soon.
Posted on December 5, 2005
Permanent link to this entry.
| |
Cold Weather Ahead As Gulf Stream Weakens
The Guardian reports on a disturbing new scientific finding: the Gulf Stream is dramatically weakening, which could bring extremely violent weather.
Researchers on a scientific expedition in the Atlantic Ocean measured the strength of the current between Africa and the east coast of America and found that the circulation has slowed by 30% since a previous expedition 12 years ago.
The current, which drives the Gulf Stream, delivers the equivalent of 1m power stations-worth of energy to northern Europe, propping up temperatures by 10C in some regions. The researchers found that the circulation has weakened by 6m tonnes of water a second. Previous expeditions to check the current flow in 1957, 1981 and 1992 found only minor changes in its strength, although a slowing was picked up in a further expedition in 1998. The decline prompted the scientists to set up a £4.8m network of moored instruments in the Atlantic to monitor changes in the current continuously.
*****
If the current remains as weak as it is, temperatures in Britain are likely to drop by an average of 1C in the next decade, according to Harry Bryden at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton who led the study. "Models show that if it shuts down completely, 20 years later, the temperature is 4C to 6C degrees cooler over the UK and north-western Europe," Dr Bryden said.
*****
Uncertainties in climate change models mean that the overall impact on Britain of a slowing down in the current are hard to pin down. "We know that if the current slows down, it will lead to a drop in temperatures in Britain and northern Europe of a few degrees, but the effect isn't even over the seasons. Most of the cooling would be in the winter, so the biggest impact would be much colder winters," said Tim Osborn, of the University of East Anglia climatic research unit.
For those who have no grounding in the sciences it is perhaps difficult to understand that global warming could cause a mini-ice age. This might explain why every time an unnatural cold front sweeps through Europe or the U.S., some idiot declares that the cold snap "proves" there is no global warming.
Posted on December 1, 2005
Permanent link to this entry.
| |
|
Our Blogs
Bloggers Blog
Book Blog
Crafters Craft
Drivers Drive
Fantasy SF Blog
Gamers Game
Health News Blog
HowToWeb.com
The IWJ Blog
Lovers Love
Media Cynic
Petosphere
Pleasant Morning Buzz
Science News Blog
Shopping Blog
Singers Sing
Surfers Surf
Traders Trade
Video Nacho
Watchers Watch
Workers Work
The Write News
Writer's Blog
|