This is President Bush’s approval rating in a new Harris poll. I just have to wonder who exactly makes up these 28%.
Can this number drop anymore?
Is this the lowest level of his presidency or can it go lower?
The following is from THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
Bush Approval Rating Falls to 28%,Lowest Level So Far, in Harris Poll
President Bush's approval rating slipped to new lows in the most recent Harris Interactive survey, but he's not alone: For the first time since the series began, all of the political figures and institutions included in the survey have negative performance ratings.
Of the 1,001 American adults polled online April 20-23, only 28% had a positive view of Mr. Bush's job performance, down from 32% in February and from a high of 88% in the aftermath of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The current rating is his weakest showing since his inauguration.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice garnered the approval of 45% of those surveyed, down from 46% in February, and approval of Defense Secretary Robert Gates slid to 29% in the latest poll, from 32% in February.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a side note, how does Condoleezza Rice have an approval of 45%?
This woman has been pathetic at her jobs in the Bush Administration. She was the worst National Security Advisor, and may be the worst Secretary of State.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Senate Intel Redux
Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung write in The Washington Post on Saturday: "Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and 'probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups' in the Muslim world."
James Gerstenzang writes in the Los Angeles Times: "In early 2003, even as their deputies were receiving the intelligence community papers, top administration officials -- among them Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- publicly speculated that U.S. troops would be greeted warmly as liberators and gave no hint that some analysts were raising red flags about difficulties to come."
Here's the full report.
James Gerstenzang writes in the Los Angeles Times: "In early 2003, even as their deputies were receiving the intelligence community papers, top administration officials -- among them Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- publicly speculated that U.S. troops would be greeted warmly as liberators and gave no hint that some analysts were raising red flags about difficulties to come."
Here's the full report.
Bush Lies About Polls
President Bush Proves Delusional or he is Lying about the polls. President Bush some how is making the claim that the public actually supports his policy on Iraq and opposes withdrawal. The facts tell a different story, all polls agree that public wants a withdrawal.
From White House Watch By Dan Froomkin
Bush's Opinion
I often wonder why more news stories don't start: "President Bush yesterday again denied reality. . . . "
And then along comes this delightful surprise from Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press:
"Confronted with strong opposition to his Iraq policies, President Bush decides to interpret public opinion his own way. Actually, he says, people agree with him.
"Democrats view the November elections that gave them control of Congress as a mandate to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. They're backed by evidence; election exit poll surveys by The Associated Press and television networks found 55 percent saying the U.S. should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.
"The president says Democrats have it all wrong: the public doesn't want the troops pulled out -- they want to give the military more support in its mission.
"'Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq,' he said April 24, ahead of a veto showdown with congressional Democrats over their desire to legislation a troop withdrawal timeline. 'I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course.'
"Increasingly isolated on a war that is going badly, Bush has presented his alternative reality in other ways, too. He expresses understanding for the public's dismay over the unrelenting sectarian violence and American losses that have passed 3,400, but then asserts that the public's solution matches his.
"'A lot of Americans want to know, you know, when?' he said at a Rose Garden news conference Thursday. 'When are you going to win?'
"Also in that session, Bush said: 'I recognize there are a handful there, or some, who just say,
"Get out, you know, it's just not worth it. Let's just leave." I strongly disagree with that attitude. Most Americans do as well.'
"In fact, polls show Americans do not disagree, and that leaving -- not winning -- is their main goal. . . .
"Bush aides say poll questions are asked so many ways, and often so imprecisely, that it is impossible to conclude that most Americans really want to get out. Failure, Bush says, is not what the public wants -- they just don't fully understand that that is just what they will get if troops are pulled out before the Iraqi government is capable of keeping the country stable on its own. . . .
"Independent pollster Andrew Kohut said of the White House view: 'I don't see what they're talking about.'"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a surprise, George W. Bush lying to the American people again, and about the war in Iraq War no less.
The truly disturbing thing is that he is blatantly lying. There is no way Bush can think this will not get fact-checked. So he is either lying about public opinion on the war, he has decided that lying to the public is, again, the best strategy for a president to take with his people, or he is delusional. If he truly believes what he is saying, that the American public is with him, we should be very afraid, because he is not just an idiot, but he's crazy.
The Associated Press has more:
From AP:
The president says Democrats have it all wrong: the public doesn't want the troops pulled out — they want to give the military more support in its mission....
Bush said: "I recognize there are a handful there, or some, who just say, `Get out, you know, it's just not worth it. Let's just leave.' I strongly disagree with that attitude. Most Americans do as well."
In fact, polls show Americans do not disagree, and that leaving — not winning — is their main goal....
Independent pollster Andrew Kohut said of the White House view: "I don't see what [the White House is] talking about."
"[People] want to know when American troops are going to leave," Kohut, director of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, said of the public. "They certainly want to win. But their hopes have been dashed."Kohut has found it notable that there's such a consensus in poll findings.
"When the public hasn't made up its mind or hasn't thought about things, there's a lot of variation in the polls," he said. "But there's a fair amount of agreement now."
The president didn't used to try to co-opt polling for his benefit. He just said he ignored it.
From White House Watch By Dan Froomkin
Bush's Opinion
I often wonder why more news stories don't start: "President Bush yesterday again denied reality. . . . "
And then along comes this delightful surprise from Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press:
"Confronted with strong opposition to his Iraq policies, President Bush decides to interpret public opinion his own way. Actually, he says, people agree with him.
"Democrats view the November elections that gave them control of Congress as a mandate to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. They're backed by evidence; election exit poll surveys by The Associated Press and television networks found 55 percent saying the U.S. should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.
"The president says Democrats have it all wrong: the public doesn't want the troops pulled out -- they want to give the military more support in its mission.
"'Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq,' he said April 24, ahead of a veto showdown with congressional Democrats over their desire to legislation a troop withdrawal timeline. 'I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course.'
"Increasingly isolated on a war that is going badly, Bush has presented his alternative reality in other ways, too. He expresses understanding for the public's dismay over the unrelenting sectarian violence and American losses that have passed 3,400, but then asserts that the public's solution matches his.
"'A lot of Americans want to know, you know, when?' he said at a Rose Garden news conference Thursday. 'When are you going to win?'
"Also in that session, Bush said: 'I recognize there are a handful there, or some, who just say,
"Get out, you know, it's just not worth it. Let's just leave." I strongly disagree with that attitude. Most Americans do as well.'
"In fact, polls show Americans do not disagree, and that leaving -- not winning -- is their main goal. . . .
"Bush aides say poll questions are asked so many ways, and often so imprecisely, that it is impossible to conclude that most Americans really want to get out. Failure, Bush says, is not what the public wants -- they just don't fully understand that that is just what they will get if troops are pulled out before the Iraqi government is capable of keeping the country stable on its own. . . .
"Independent pollster Andrew Kohut said of the White House view: 'I don't see what they're talking about.'"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a surprise, George W. Bush lying to the American people again, and about the war in Iraq War no less.
The truly disturbing thing is that he is blatantly lying. There is no way Bush can think this will not get fact-checked. So he is either lying about public opinion on the war, he has decided that lying to the public is, again, the best strategy for a president to take with his people, or he is delusional. If he truly believes what he is saying, that the American public is with him, we should be very afraid, because he is not just an idiot, but he's crazy.
The Associated Press has more:
From AP:
The president says Democrats have it all wrong: the public doesn't want the troops pulled out — they want to give the military more support in its mission....
Bush said: "I recognize there are a handful there, or some, who just say, `Get out, you know, it's just not worth it. Let's just leave.' I strongly disagree with that attitude. Most Americans do as well."
In fact, polls show Americans do not disagree, and that leaving — not winning — is their main goal....
Independent pollster Andrew Kohut said of the White House view: "I don't see what [the White House is] talking about."
"[People] want to know when American troops are going to leave," Kohut, director of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, said of the public. "They certainly want to win. But their hopes have been dashed."Kohut has found it notable that there's such a consensus in poll findings.
"When the public hasn't made up its mind or hasn't thought about things, there's a lot of variation in the polls," he said. "But there's a fair amount of agreement now."
The president didn't used to try to co-opt polling for his benefit. He just said he ignored it.
Banning Photos of the wounded
From the NYT
“They are basically asking me to stand in front of a unit before I go out with them and say that in the event that they are wounded, I would like their consent,” he said. “We are already viewed by some as bloodsucking vultures, and making that kind of announcement would make you an immediate bad luck charm.”“They are not letting us cover the reality of war,” he added. “I think this has got little to do with the families or the soldiers and everything to do with politics.”....Until last year, no permission was required to publish photographs of the wounded, but families had to be notified of the soldier’s injury first. Now, not only is permission required, but any image of casualties that shows a recognizable name or unit is off-limits. And memorials for the fallen in Iraq can no longer be shown, even when the unit in question invites coverage.We quite literally have a government that no longer believes in the very freedoms it claims our troops are dying for.
“They are basically asking me to stand in front of a unit before I go out with them and say that in the event that they are wounded, I would like their consent,” he said. “We are already viewed by some as bloodsucking vultures, and making that kind of announcement would make you an immediate bad luck charm.”“They are not letting us cover the reality of war,” he added. “I think this has got little to do with the families or the soldiers and everything to do with politics.”....Until last year, no permission was required to publish photographs of the wounded, but families had to be notified of the soldier’s injury first. Now, not only is permission required, but any image of casualties that shows a recognizable name or unit is off-limits. And memorials for the fallen in Iraq can no longer be shown, even when the unit in question invites coverage.We quite literally have a government that no longer believes in the very freedoms it claims our troops are dying for.
Did the CIA Order Analysts to Cherry-Pick Intel for Iraq War?
Author's Peter Eiser and Knut Royce reveal in their new book "The Italian Letter" that Alan Foley, the head of the CIA’s Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center, cherry-picked evidence to make the case for war in Iraq:
One day in December 2002, Foley called his senior production managers to his office. He had a clear message for the men and women who controlled the output of the center’s analysts: “If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so.” The directive was not quite an order to cook the books, but it was a strong suggestion that cherry-picking and slanting not only would be tolerated, but might even be rewarded.
One day in December 2002, Foley called his senior production managers to his office. He had a clear message for the men and women who controlled the output of the center’s analysts: “If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so.” The directive was not quite an order to cook the books, but it was a strong suggestion that cherry-picking and slanting not only would be tolerated, but might even be rewarded.
Blocking Progress on Climate Change
As the threat of global climate crisis grows, the global mechanisms for averting disaster are being gutted. A new report published by the National Academy of Sciences found that from 2000 to 2004, global industry emitted roughly 7.9 billion tons of carbon dioxide, millions more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had projected "under its most extreme scenario." Meanwhile, the world's only international pact mandating cuts in carbon emissions, the Kyoto Protocol, is set to expire in 2012.
With this backdrop, Bush administration negotiators met this week in Germany in advance of next month's G8 summit of the world's richest nations. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has "been pushing hard to get the Group of 8 to take significant action on climate change," setting bold new standards to take the place of Kyoto. Virtually alone in resisting her is President Bush. "In unusually harsh language," Bush administration negotiators rejected Germany's proposal, complaining that it "crosses multiple red lines in terms of what we simply cannot agree to."
The Bush administration is blocking real action on climate change. Bush's drive to hobble the G8 climate change declaration was first uncovered two weeks ago, when reports showed that the United States was seeking to eliminate a section in the G8 draft that included "a pledge to limit the global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, as well as an agreement to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050."
Bush administration officials also tried to eliminate draft language that said, "We acknowledge that the U.N. climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change." The administration is also blocking local progress on climate change, refusing to approve efforts by 12 states "to institute tougher standards for tailpipe emissions than U.S. regulations require." In an op-ed last week, Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Jodi Rell (R-CT) charged that Bush's resistance borders on malfeasance." Also, recently more than 20 major U.S. corporations joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, agreeing to a 60 percent to 80 percent reduction by 2050, far beyond what even the G8 is calling for.
Climate change will drastically affect some of those least able to afford adaptations to its effects. Noting the focus on anti-poverty measures at recent G8 summits, the international development group Oxfam has issued a new report highlighting the "deep injustice in the impacts of climate change": the poor nations least responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global warming will bear the brunt of its devastating impacts.
For Africa that means dramatic reductions in agricultural productivity, hundreds of millions newly exposed to water shortages, a 5 percent to 10 percent loss in GDP in coastal countries, and an expanded range of malaria to exhaust already-deficient heath services. The World Bank estimates that 40 percent of development assistance and concessional financing -- approximately $40 billion annually -- is directed at activities that will be affected by climate change. Oxfam estimates that it will cost developing countries $50 billion a year to adapt to climate change.Coal is not the key to the reducing global warming emissions.
Meanwhile, even as congressional leaders draft legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, "a powerful roster of Democrats and Republicans is pushing to subsidize coal as the king of alternative fuels." Prodded by "intense lobbying from the coal industry," lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers spend billions of dollars to subsidize the coal industry's production of liquid diesel fuel. This is a dangerously backwards idea. Coal-to-liquid fuels "produce almost twice the volume of greenhouse gases as ordinary diesel," and the production process of such fuels "creates almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel." Congressional supporters of coal-to-liquids argue that "coal-based fuels are more American than gasoline." But the only responsible way to achieve American energy independence is to create policies that also reduce global warming. That can be done with low-carbon, alternative transportation fuels, including American-grown biofuels.
With this backdrop, Bush administration negotiators met this week in Germany in advance of next month's G8 summit of the world's richest nations. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has "been pushing hard to get the Group of 8 to take significant action on climate change," setting bold new standards to take the place of Kyoto. Virtually alone in resisting her is President Bush. "In unusually harsh language," Bush administration negotiators rejected Germany's proposal, complaining that it "crosses multiple red lines in terms of what we simply cannot agree to."
The Bush administration is blocking real action on climate change. Bush's drive to hobble the G8 climate change declaration was first uncovered two weeks ago, when reports showed that the United States was seeking to eliminate a section in the G8 draft that included "a pledge to limit the global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, as well as an agreement to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050."
Bush administration officials also tried to eliminate draft language that said, "We acknowledge that the U.N. climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change." The administration is also blocking local progress on climate change, refusing to approve efforts by 12 states "to institute tougher standards for tailpipe emissions than U.S. regulations require." In an op-ed last week, Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Jodi Rell (R-CT) charged that Bush's resistance borders on malfeasance." Also, recently more than 20 major U.S. corporations joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, agreeing to a 60 percent to 80 percent reduction by 2050, far beyond what even the G8 is calling for.
Climate change will drastically affect some of those least able to afford adaptations to its effects. Noting the focus on anti-poverty measures at recent G8 summits, the international development group Oxfam has issued a new report highlighting the "deep injustice in the impacts of climate change": the poor nations least responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global warming will bear the brunt of its devastating impacts.
For Africa that means dramatic reductions in agricultural productivity, hundreds of millions newly exposed to water shortages, a 5 percent to 10 percent loss in GDP in coastal countries, and an expanded range of malaria to exhaust already-deficient heath services. The World Bank estimates that 40 percent of development assistance and concessional financing -- approximately $40 billion annually -- is directed at activities that will be affected by climate change. Oxfam estimates that it will cost developing countries $50 billion a year to adapt to climate change.Coal is not the key to the reducing global warming emissions.
Meanwhile, even as congressional leaders draft legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, "a powerful roster of Democrats and Republicans is pushing to subsidize coal as the king of alternative fuels." Prodded by "intense lobbying from the coal industry," lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers spend billions of dollars to subsidize the coal industry's production of liquid diesel fuel. This is a dangerously backwards idea. Coal-to-liquid fuels "produce almost twice the volume of greenhouse gases as ordinary diesel," and the production process of such fuels "creates almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel." Congressional supporters of coal-to-liquids argue that "coal-based fuels are more American than gasoline." But the only responsible way to achieve American energy independence is to create policies that also reduce global warming. That can be done with low-carbon, alternative transportation fuels, including American-grown biofuels.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
McClellan Has No Answer
McClellan Still Won’t Say When White House Learned Of Report Debunking Bio Lab Claims
Scott McClellan was asked yesterday by the White Hose Press corps, exactly when did senior administration officials, not jus Bush but Cheney, Rice, Rove, and or Hadley became aware of a Pentagon report which found that trailers in Iraq “had nothing to do with biological weapons.” McClellan said he was “looking into it.”
Guess what?
Today he still had no answer, but he had more exagerated indignation.
To dodge the question, McClellan changed the subject. He talked about how the Defense Department processes information. But that is not the issue. The issue is when top administration officials became aware of the Pentagon field report.
Think we will ever get an answer to this?
Doubtful
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Iraq - A House Divided Against Itself
The Associated Press is reporting:
'The United States has been pushing Iraq to speed up the formation of a unity government, seen as the best option to subdue the violence gripping several Iraqi cities. But the talks are fragile, in a country with deep sectarian differences between Shiites and Sunnis and daily violent death tolls in the dozens.'
----
Recent heavy-handed meddling by the Bush administration into Iraq politics has done nothing to improve the situation but has renewed charges that the United States is trying to subvert Iraqi sovereignty. Such clumsy handling of the political situation is damaging the efforts of the Iraqi people to put their country on a path to democracy, and destroying what little progress the Bush Administration has been able to claim.
Negotiations over the formation of the Iraqi government have been ongoing since the election results were certified in early January, and the Iraqis have been "unable to agree on a new, permanent government for the country for more than five weeks."
The March 16 meeting of the Iraqi parliament set in motion what will ultimately be a long process of choosing a ruling government. Currently, talks are stalled and compromise "hinges on" whether Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the current prime minister, should receive a second term. Jaafari has the "backing of firebrand, anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr," and "as long as the other major blocs oppose Mr. Jaafari, the process is at a standstill."
In an effort to jumpstart the negotiations, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told Shiite officials that President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Jaafari Iraq's next prime minister. Khalilzad's move "is the first time the Americans have directly expressed a preference in the furious debate over the country's top job," and "it is inflaming tensions between the Americans and some Shiite leaders."
The White House confirmed that Khalilzad met with a Shiite official, but did not deny that it expressed disapproval of Jaafari. "The U.S. ambassador's position on al-Jaafari's nomination is negative," one Iraqi leader with close ties to Jaafari said. "They want him (the prime minister) to be under their control." Also, the U.S. sent a message to Iraq's senior religious cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, "strongly implying" that Jaafari should withdraw his nomination. "[B]y contacting the revered Shiite Muslim leader, the administration risks further angering Iraqi leaders, who already complain that the United States is interfering too much with the process."
While Bush has promised to "help the Iraqis establish a democracy," the U.S. has a history of unsuccessfully butting into local Iraqi politics (e.g. the failed candidacy of Ahmed Chalabi). This latest "sign of White House impatience over the deadlocked talks to form a new government" could risk making the important work of democracy illegitimate in the Iraqi people's eyes.
The ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq have led to delays in the political process. As the weeks go by, Iraqi leaders have "offered a myriad of reasons for the delay in forming a government, and their reasoning often reflected their religious or ethnic loyalties."
Outside of the political arena, sectarian violence continues to escalate around Iraq. The U.N. International Organization for Migration recently reported that since the February 22 bombing of Samarra's Golden Mosque, "sectarian violence has displaced more than 25,000 Iraqis."
Iraq continues to be a country where "Shiite majority and Sunni Arab and ethnic Kurdish minorities have been competing for a share of power and turf since the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein three years ago."
Yet the administration continues to describe the situation in unrealistic terms. Secretary Rice described current negotiations as an "extraordinary scene with Iraqi Sunni and Shia and Kurds all working together toward a unity government."
Trying to push this Bush Administration line was National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley last weekend who said,"Every time the Iraqi people have had a chance to vote, they have voted for unity." This really is not the case though, what has happened with each election is that Iraqis have voted based on their ethnic and religious identities, not unity.
In fact, based on election results only nine percent of Iraqis supported "national unity" by voting for such candidates in the December election.
'The United States has been pushing Iraq to speed up the formation of a unity government, seen as the best option to subdue the violence gripping several Iraqi cities. But the talks are fragile, in a country with deep sectarian differences between Shiites and Sunnis and daily violent death tolls in the dozens.'
----
Recent heavy-handed meddling by the Bush administration into Iraq politics has done nothing to improve the situation but has renewed charges that the United States is trying to subvert Iraqi sovereignty. Such clumsy handling of the political situation is damaging the efforts of the Iraqi people to put their country on a path to democracy, and destroying what little progress the Bush Administration has been able to claim.
Negotiations over the formation of the Iraqi government have been ongoing since the election results were certified in early January, and the Iraqis have been "unable to agree on a new, permanent government for the country for more than five weeks."
The March 16 meeting of the Iraqi parliament set in motion what will ultimately be a long process of choosing a ruling government. Currently, talks are stalled and compromise "hinges on" whether Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the current prime minister, should receive a second term. Jaafari has the "backing of firebrand, anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr," and "as long as the other major blocs oppose Mr. Jaafari, the process is at a standstill."
In an effort to jumpstart the negotiations, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told Shiite officials that President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Jaafari Iraq's next prime minister. Khalilzad's move "is the first time the Americans have directly expressed a preference in the furious debate over the country's top job," and "it is inflaming tensions between the Americans and some Shiite leaders."
The White House confirmed that Khalilzad met with a Shiite official, but did not deny that it expressed disapproval of Jaafari. "The U.S. ambassador's position on al-Jaafari's nomination is negative," one Iraqi leader with close ties to Jaafari said. "They want him (the prime minister) to be under their control." Also, the U.S. sent a message to Iraq's senior religious cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, "strongly implying" that Jaafari should withdraw his nomination. "[B]y contacting the revered Shiite Muslim leader, the administration risks further angering Iraqi leaders, who already complain that the United States is interfering too much with the process."
While Bush has promised to "help the Iraqis establish a democracy," the U.S. has a history of unsuccessfully butting into local Iraqi politics (e.g. the failed candidacy of Ahmed Chalabi). This latest "sign of White House impatience over the deadlocked talks to form a new government" could risk making the important work of democracy illegitimate in the Iraqi people's eyes.
The ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq have led to delays in the political process. As the weeks go by, Iraqi leaders have "offered a myriad of reasons for the delay in forming a government, and their reasoning often reflected their religious or ethnic loyalties."
Outside of the political arena, sectarian violence continues to escalate around Iraq. The U.N. International Organization for Migration recently reported that since the February 22 bombing of Samarra's Golden Mosque, "sectarian violence has displaced more than 25,000 Iraqis."
Iraq continues to be a country where "Shiite majority and Sunni Arab and ethnic Kurdish minorities have been competing for a share of power and turf since the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein three years ago."
Yet the administration continues to describe the situation in unrealistic terms. Secretary Rice described current negotiations as an "extraordinary scene with Iraqi Sunni and Shia and Kurds all working together toward a unity government."
Trying to push this Bush Administration line was National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley last weekend who said,"Every time the Iraqi people have had a chance to vote, they have voted for unity." This really is not the case though, what has happened with each election is that Iraqis have voted based on their ethnic and religious identities, not unity.
In fact, based on election results only nine percent of Iraqis supported "national unity" by voting for such candidates in the December election.
The Associated Press is reporting:
'The United States has been pushing Iraq to speed up the formation of a unity government, seen as the best option to subdue the violence gripping several Iraqi cities. But the talks are fragile, in a country with deep sectarian differences between Shiites and Sunnis and daily violent death tolls in the dozens.'
----
Recent heavy-handed meddling by the Bush administration into Iraq politics has done nothing to improve the situation but has renewed charges that the United States is trying to subvert Iraqi sovereignty. Such clumsy handling of the political situation is damaging the efforts of the Iraqi people to put their country on a path to democracy, and destroying what little progress the Bush Administration has been able to claim.
Negotiations over the formation of the Iraqi government have been ongoing since the election results were certified in early January, and the Iraqis have been "unable to agree on a new, permanent government for the country for more than five weeks."
The March 16 meeting of the Iraqi parliament set in motion what will ultimately be a long process of choosing a ruling government. Currently, talks are stalled and compromise "hinges on" whether Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the current prime minister, should receive a second term. Jaafari has the "backing of firebrand, anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr," and "as long as the other major blocs oppose Mr. Jaafari, the process is at a standstill."
In an effort to jumpstart the negotiations, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told Shiite officials that President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Jaafari Iraq's next prime minister. Khalilzad's move "is the first time the Americans have directly expressed a preference in the furious debate over the country's top job," and "it is inflaming tensions between the Americans and some Shiite leaders."
The White House confirmed that Khalilzad met with a Shiite official, but did not deny that it expressed disapproval of Jaafari. "The U.S. ambassador's position on al-Jaafari's nomination is negative," one Iraqi leader with close ties to Jaafari said. "They want him (the prime minister) to be under their control." Also, the U.S. sent a message to Iraq's senior religious cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, "strongly implying" that Jaafari should withdraw his nomination. "[B]y contacting the revered Shiite Muslim leader, the administration risks further angering Iraqi leaders, who already complain that the United States is interfering too much with the process."
While Bush has promised to "help the Iraqis establish a democracy," the U.S. has a history of unsuccessfully butting into local Iraqi politics (e.g. the failed candidacy of Ahmed Chalabi). This latest "sign of White House impatience over the deadlocked talks to form a new government" could risk making the important work of democracy illegitimate in the Iraqi people's eyes.
The ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq have led to delays in the political process. As the weeks go by, Iraqi leaders have "offered a myriad of reasons for the delay in forming a government, and their reasoning often reflected their religious or ethnic loyalties."
Outside of the political arena, sectarian violence continues to escalate around Iraq. The U.N. International Organization for Migration recently reported that since the February 22 bombing of Samarra's Golden Mosque, "sectarian violence has displaced more than 25,000 Iraqis."
Iraq continues to be a country where "Shiite majority and Sunni Arab and ethnic Kurdish minorities have been competing for a share of power and turf since the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein three years ago."
Yet the administration continues to describe the situation in unrealistic terms. Secretary Rice described current negotiations as an "extraordinary scene with Iraqi Sunni and Shia and Kurds all working together toward a unity government."
Trying to push this Bush Administration line was National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley last weekend who said,"Every time the Iraqi people have had a chance to vote, they have voted for unity." This really is not the case though, what has happened with each election is that Iraqis have voted based on their ethnic and religious identities, not unity.
In fact, based on election results only nine percent of Iraqis supported "national unity" by voting for such candidates in the December election.
'The United States has been pushing Iraq to speed up the formation of a unity government, seen as the best option to subdue the violence gripping several Iraqi cities. But the talks are fragile, in a country with deep sectarian differences between Shiites and Sunnis and daily violent death tolls in the dozens.'
----
Recent heavy-handed meddling by the Bush administration into Iraq politics has done nothing to improve the situation but has renewed charges that the United States is trying to subvert Iraqi sovereignty. Such clumsy handling of the political situation is damaging the efforts of the Iraqi people to put their country on a path to democracy, and destroying what little progress the Bush Administration has been able to claim.
Negotiations over the formation of the Iraqi government have been ongoing since the election results were certified in early January, and the Iraqis have been "unable to agree on a new, permanent government for the country for more than five weeks."
The March 16 meeting of the Iraqi parliament set in motion what will ultimately be a long process of choosing a ruling government. Currently, talks are stalled and compromise "hinges on" whether Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the current prime minister, should receive a second term. Jaafari has the "backing of firebrand, anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr," and "as long as the other major blocs oppose Mr. Jaafari, the process is at a standstill."
In an effort to jumpstart the negotiations, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad told Shiite officials that President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Jaafari Iraq's next prime minister. Khalilzad's move "is the first time the Americans have directly expressed a preference in the furious debate over the country's top job," and "it is inflaming tensions between the Americans and some Shiite leaders."
The White House confirmed that Khalilzad met with a Shiite official, but did not deny that it expressed disapproval of Jaafari. "The U.S. ambassador's position on al-Jaafari's nomination is negative," one Iraqi leader with close ties to Jaafari said. "They want him (the prime minister) to be under their control." Also, the U.S. sent a message to Iraq's senior religious cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, "strongly implying" that Jaafari should withdraw his nomination. "[B]y contacting the revered Shiite Muslim leader, the administration risks further angering Iraqi leaders, who already complain that the United States is interfering too much with the process."
While Bush has promised to "help the Iraqis establish a democracy," the U.S. has a history of unsuccessfully butting into local Iraqi politics (e.g. the failed candidacy of Ahmed Chalabi). This latest "sign of White House impatience over the deadlocked talks to form a new government" could risk making the important work of democracy illegitimate in the Iraqi people's eyes.
The ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq have led to delays in the political process. As the weeks go by, Iraqi leaders have "offered a myriad of reasons for the delay in forming a government, and their reasoning often reflected their religious or ethnic loyalties."
Outside of the political arena, sectarian violence continues to escalate around Iraq. The U.N. International Organization for Migration recently reported that since the February 22 bombing of Samarra's Golden Mosque, "sectarian violence has displaced more than 25,000 Iraqis."
Iraq continues to be a country where "Shiite majority and Sunni Arab and ethnic Kurdish minorities have been competing for a share of power and turf since the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein three years ago."
Yet the administration continues to describe the situation in unrealistic terms. Secretary Rice described current negotiations as an "extraordinary scene with Iraqi Sunni and Shia and Kurds all working together toward a unity government."
Trying to push this Bush Administration line was National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley last weekend who said,"Every time the Iraqi people have had a chance to vote, they have voted for unity." This really is not the case though, what has happened with each election is that Iraqis have voted based on their ethnic and religious identities, not unity.
In fact, based on election results only nine percent of Iraqis supported "national unity" by voting for such candidates in the December election.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Bush Tells Congress (again) - We Are Above Your "Laws"
The House Judiciary Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, submitted a set of detailed questions to the Bush Administration and the Department of Justice regarding the NSA domestic spying program, and the Department of Justice's responses to these questions are now available (see below).
There are numerous remarkable items, but the most noteworthy is that the Department of Justice made it quite clear to the Judiciary committee that even if Congress were to pass some sort of newly amended FISA Law of the type which Sen. DeWine (a Republican) has introduced, and even if the President "agrees" to it and signs it into law, the President still has the power to violate that law if he wants to. Put another way, the Administration is telling the Congress -- again -- that they can go and pass all the laws they want which purport to liberalize or restrict the President's powers, and it does not matter, because the President has and intends to preserve the power to do whatever he wants regardless of what those laws provide.
Case in point is question number (5) from the Committee Republicans which asked "whether President Carter's signature on FISA in 1978, together with his signing statement," meant that the Executive had agreed to be bound by the restrictions placed by FISA on the President's powers to eavesdrop on Americans. This is how the Department of Justice responded, in relevant part:
'The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statutes inconsistent with the Constitution must yield. The basic principle of our system of government means that no President, merely by assenting to a piece of legislation, can diminish the scope of the President's constitutional power...
'Just as one President may not, through signing legislation, eliminate the Executive Branch's inherent constitutional powers, Congress may not renounce inherent presidential authority. The Constitution grants the President the inherent power to protect the nation from foreign attack, and Congress may not impede the President's ability to perform his constitutional duty.'
Thus the President is claiming that he is granted by the Constitution with powers that George Washington rejected. President Bush and his administration are claiming unlimited and un-limitable power to do anything that they believe is necessary to "protect the nation." So even if Congress passes several laws which seek to limit or define the power of the President in any way, and even if the President agrees to those limitations and signs these bills into laws, the President claims he still retains the power to violate them whenever he wants.
Thus, Sen. DeWine can pass his bill purporting to require oversight, or Sen. Specter can pass his, or they can do nothing and leave FISA in place. None of that matters, because no matter what Congress do with regard to the law, the law does not restrict what the President can do in any way.
President Bush and his administration are telling the Congress to its face that all of the grand debates it is having and the negotiations it is conducting are all irrelevant farces, because no matter what happens, the President, while we are at war, retains unlimited power and nothing that Congress does can affect that power in any way. Anyone notice they keep claiming this is a generational war?
The reality is that the Bush Administration has been making it quite clear for some time that the President has unlimited power and that nothing -- not even the law -- can restrict it; and here, they are specifically telling Congress that even if Congress amends FISA and the President agrees to abide by those amendments, they still have the power to break the law whenever they want.
Folks we have a President who is seizing unlimited power, including the power to break the law, yet few seem to be noticing!
DoJ's responses to both the Democrats' questions: http://rawprint.com/pdfs/HJCrawstory2.pdf
DoJ's responses to both the Republicans' questions: http://rawprint.com/pdfs/HJCrawstory1.pdf
JRhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Air_America_Rising
There are numerous remarkable items, but the most noteworthy is that the Department of Justice made it quite clear to the Judiciary committee that even if Congress were to pass some sort of newly amended FISA Law of the type which Sen. DeWine (a Republican) has introduced, and even if the President "agrees" to it and signs it into law, the President still has the power to violate that law if he wants to. Put another way, the Administration is telling the Congress -- again -- that they can go and pass all the laws they want which purport to liberalize or restrict the President's powers, and it does not matter, because the President has and intends to preserve the power to do whatever he wants regardless of what those laws provide.
Case in point is question number (5) from the Committee Republicans which asked "whether President Carter's signature on FISA in 1978, together with his signing statement," meant that the Executive had agreed to be bound by the restrictions placed by FISA on the President's powers to eavesdrop on Americans. This is how the Department of Justice responded, in relevant part:
'The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statutes inconsistent with the Constitution must yield. The basic principle of our system of government means that no President, merely by assenting to a piece of legislation, can diminish the scope of the President's constitutional power...
'Just as one President may not, through signing legislation, eliminate the Executive Branch's inherent constitutional powers, Congress may not renounce inherent presidential authority. The Constitution grants the President the inherent power to protect the nation from foreign attack, and Congress may not impede the President's ability to perform his constitutional duty.'
Thus the President is claiming that he is granted by the Constitution with powers that George Washington rejected. President Bush and his administration are claiming unlimited and un-limitable power to do anything that they believe is necessary to "protect the nation." So even if Congress passes several laws which seek to limit or define the power of the President in any way, and even if the President agrees to those limitations and signs these bills into laws, the President claims he still retains the power to violate them whenever he wants.
Thus, Sen. DeWine can pass his bill purporting to require oversight, or Sen. Specter can pass his, or they can do nothing and leave FISA in place. None of that matters, because no matter what Congress do with regard to the law, the law does not restrict what the President can do in any way.
President Bush and his administration are telling the Congress to its face that all of the grand debates it is having and the negotiations it is conducting are all irrelevant farces, because no matter what happens, the President, while we are at war, retains unlimited power and nothing that Congress does can affect that power in any way. Anyone notice they keep claiming this is a generational war?
The reality is that the Bush Administration has been making it quite clear for some time that the President has unlimited power and that nothing -- not even the law -- can restrict it; and here, they are specifically telling Congress that even if Congress amends FISA and the President agrees to abide by those amendments, they still have the power to break the law whenever they want.
Folks we have a President who is seizing unlimited power, including the power to break the law, yet few seem to be noticing!
DoJ's responses to both the Democrats' questions: http://rawprint.com/pdfs/HJCrawstory2.pdf
DoJ's responses to both the Republicans' questions: http://rawprint.com/pdfs/HJCrawstory1.pdf
JRhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Air_America_Rising
Monday, March 06, 2006
US envoy hints at strike to stop Iran
A British paper is reporting that the John Bolton, the US envoy to the UN, hints at the possiblity of a military strike to stop Iran from moving forward with their nuclear ambitions.
Yes folks, that non-serving, no military background, chickenhawk, John Bolton is talking tough with other people's blood. AGAIN!
What the hell??? Has Bolton ever done anything for this country, besides opening his PIE HOLE?
The Guardian is reporting that Bolton has told British MPs that military action could bring Iran's nuclear programme to a halt if all diplomatic efforts fail.
Of course military experts have long said this is a total crock, but hey Bolton has proved his incompetense before, what's another opportunity?
The CIA appears to be the most sceptical about a military solution and shares the state department's position, in suggesting gradually stepping up pressure on the Iranians.
Let's hope no one pays any attention to Bolton.
Yes folks, that non-serving, no military background, chickenhawk, John Bolton is talking tough with other people's blood. AGAIN!
What the hell??? Has Bolton ever done anything for this country, besides opening his PIE HOLE?
The Guardian is reporting that Bolton has told British MPs that military action could bring Iran's nuclear programme to a halt if all diplomatic efforts fail.
Of course military experts have long said this is a total crock, but hey Bolton has proved his incompetense before, what's another opportunity?
The CIA appears to be the most sceptical about a military solution and shares the state department's position, in suggesting gradually stepping up pressure on the Iranians.
Let's hope no one pays any attention to Bolton.
Homeland Security Can't Even Guard Its Own Building
A report has come forward which states that security guards at Homeland Security headquarters say the agency entrusted with protecting the U.S.homeland is having difficulty safeguarding its own command center.
A litany of problems have been listed by these security guards, including mishandling of mysterious powders, and sent to Congress.
Some of the problems listed were, inadequate training, ineffective equipment, lightly guarded entrances and other problems. WackenhutServices Inc. is the private company responsible for training guardsand supplying them with the necessary equipment.
Senator Ron Wyden said, "It would be ironic, to say the least, ifD.H.S. were unable to secure its own headquarters."
A litany of problems have been listed by these security guards, including mishandling of mysterious powders, and sent to Congress.
Some of the problems listed were, inadequate training, ineffective equipment, lightly guarded entrances and other problems. WackenhutServices Inc. is the private company responsible for training guardsand supplying them with the necessary equipment.
Senator Ron Wyden said, "It would be ironic, to say the least, ifD.H.S. were unable to secure its own headquarters."
Friday, March 03, 2006
Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Faster!!!
This was posted on a YahooGroup: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Air_America_Rising I run, and I found it very interesting and dire.
The Washington Post is reporting this on its front page:The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice ayear in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according toa new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's totalmass is shrinking significantly.The new findings, which are being published today in the journalScience, suggest that global sea level could rise substantially overthe next several centuries.
---------------
This is just one of a slew of scientific papers in recent weeks thathave sought to gauge the impact of climate change on the world'soceans and lakes. The ice sheet is losing mass at a significantrate. New Antarctic measurements, using data from two NASAsatellites called the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment(GRACE), found that the amount of water pouring annually from theice sheet into the ocean. Scientists from NASA and the NAS say thisis equivalent to the amount of water the United States uses in threemonths.This is terrible news people... well unless you're George W. Bush...who needs more data.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This story should be getting more attention.
The Washington Post is reporting this on its front page:The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice ayear in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according toa new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's totalmass is shrinking significantly.The new findings, which are being published today in the journalScience, suggest that global sea level could rise substantially overthe next several centuries.
---------------
This is just one of a slew of scientific papers in recent weeks thathave sought to gauge the impact of climate change on the world'soceans and lakes. The ice sheet is losing mass at a significantrate. New Antarctic measurements, using data from two NASAsatellites called the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment(GRACE), found that the amount of water pouring annually from theice sheet into the ocean. Scientists from NASA and the NAS say thisis equivalent to the amount of water the United States uses in threemonths.This is terrible news people... well unless you're George W. Bush...who needs more data.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This story should be getting more attention.
Prime Minister Blamed for Week of Slaughter
The Shia choice for prime minister has been rejected by Kurds and Sunnis for failing to halt the bloodshed which casts grave doubt on a national unity government that people had hoped could quickly defuse conflict between Iraq’s ethnic groups. If a government cannot be formed it makes the December election less meaningful, and might even make another election necessary.
Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari has been blamed for failing to provide the leadership necessary to bring the past week’s mayhem under control. His competence after nearly a year as Prime Minister had already been widely questioned, and he has been accused of permitting Shia death squads to operate within uniformed security forces.
PM Jaafari is the Shia choice to continue to lead the Cabinet for the next four years. But they have not been able to get enough support. A new government has still not been formed more than two months after the highly praised general elections in December.
This new political crisis comes after a bloody week of sectarian slaughter in which hundreds maybe even thousands have been murdered on the streets since the bombing of the Shia shrine in the city of Samarra. Those confirmed killed include 45 Sunni preachers and mosque employees, according to figures released yesterday by an Iraqi government body.
PM Jaafari responded to the calls for him to go by cancelling a meeting that had been arranged to revive stalled talks to form the new government.
PM Jaafari may be falling victim to a power struggle between the strong Kurdish group and the Shia parties who won the most seats in the election in December. Although the Shia parties hold the biggest share of the 275 seats in the National Assembly and are thus entitled to put forward a candidate as prime minister, they still need Kurdish support to govern.
If the process of government formation collapses over the issue of Mr Jaafari, American hopes of stabilising Iraq and reducing troop numbers will recede further after they were called into question by the turmoil of the past week.
In another alarming move, the powerful al-Mahdi Army militia loyal to the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said that it would defend Sadr City in Baghdad, a huge Shia slum, after a bomb attack on a bus there killed five people. Al-Mahdi leaders said that they would co-ordinate with Iraqi army units, but the move indicated that militias may be starting to take increasing control on the ground.
Good thing Bush doesn't buy the premise that Iraq is teetering on the edge of a civil war.
JR
Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari has been blamed for failing to provide the leadership necessary to bring the past week’s mayhem under control. His competence after nearly a year as Prime Minister had already been widely questioned, and he has been accused of permitting Shia death squads to operate within uniformed security forces.
PM Jaafari is the Shia choice to continue to lead the Cabinet for the next four years. But they have not been able to get enough support. A new government has still not been formed more than two months after the highly praised general elections in December.
This new political crisis comes after a bloody week of sectarian slaughter in which hundreds maybe even thousands have been murdered on the streets since the bombing of the Shia shrine in the city of Samarra. Those confirmed killed include 45 Sunni preachers and mosque employees, according to figures released yesterday by an Iraqi government body.
PM Jaafari responded to the calls for him to go by cancelling a meeting that had been arranged to revive stalled talks to form the new government.
PM Jaafari may be falling victim to a power struggle between the strong Kurdish group and the Shia parties who won the most seats in the election in December. Although the Shia parties hold the biggest share of the 275 seats in the National Assembly and are thus entitled to put forward a candidate as prime minister, they still need Kurdish support to govern.
If the process of government formation collapses over the issue of Mr Jaafari, American hopes of stabilising Iraq and reducing troop numbers will recede further after they were called into question by the turmoil of the past week.
In another alarming move, the powerful al-Mahdi Army militia loyal to the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said that it would defend Sadr City in Baghdad, a huge Shia slum, after a bomb attack on a bus there killed five people. Al-Mahdi leaders said that they would co-ordinate with Iraqi army units, but the move indicated that militias may be starting to take increasing control on the ground.
Good thing Bush doesn't buy the premise that Iraq is teetering on the edge of a civil war.
JR
NEW 'OFFICE OF IRANIAN AFFAIRS' OUTLINED IN STATE DEPARTMENT CABLE
The Bush administration this month "quietly orchestrated a major shift in U.S. policy toward Iran," requesting $85 million for a plan "not just to contain Tehran’s nuclear ambitions but also to topple the Iranian government."
An unclassified State Department cable released yesterday offers details on this new strategy. (The Progress Report has acquired a copy of the document, which you can read here.) The cable announces a new Office of Iranian Affairs, and serves as a global casting call for Iran and Persian language experts. It states that the U.S. is establishing positions in the United Arab Emirates and developing "reporting" positions in countries with large Iranian exile communities, including Germany, Great Britain, and Azerbaijan, among others (a strategy also used prior to the war in Iraq).
In related news, the president of the conservative Hudson Institute has published a commentary urging the Bush administration to use "an American military strike to knock out Iran's uranium processing capacity."
"Will Bush do it?" Herb London asks. "He cannot afford not to do it."
Yet numerous U.S. military analysts and Iran experts have said there are no good military options to the Iran nuclear impasse.
Personally I hope we can find a better way.
An unclassified State Department cable released yesterday offers details on this new strategy. (The Progress Report has acquired a copy of the document, which you can read here.) The cable announces a new Office of Iranian Affairs, and serves as a global casting call for Iran and Persian language experts. It states that the U.S. is establishing positions in the United Arab Emirates and developing "reporting" positions in countries with large Iranian exile communities, including Germany, Great Britain, and Azerbaijan, among others (a strategy also used prior to the war in Iraq).
In related news, the president of the conservative Hudson Institute has published a commentary urging the Bush administration to use "an American military strike to knock out Iran's uranium processing capacity."
"Will Bush do it?" Herb London asks. "He cannot afford not to do it."
Yet numerous U.S. military analysts and Iran experts have said there are no good military options to the Iran nuclear impasse.
Personally I hope we can find a better way.
Toward a Two-Tiered Internet
The Internet is one of history's most democratic forms of communication. No form of communication has brought together more people, each with the ability to share and learn. In 1999, John Chambers, President and CEO of networking giant Cisco, called the Internet the great "equalizer between people, companies, and countries."
But recent efforts by AOL and Yahoo to create a tiered Internet would tilt the system's level playing field in favor of large wealthy companies. The two e-mail providers have partnered with Goodmail Systems to "charge companies about 1/4 cent to send a message that will bypass spam filters."
E-mails from paying companies will go straight to a user's inbox, but e-mails from non-paying companies will go through the "gauntlet of spam filters that could divert them to a junk-mail folder or strip them of images and Web links," even if they're not spam.
It is being reported in various articles that AOL and Yahoo argue that this measure--set to go into effect for AOL in 30 days--will help reduce spam for users. But I don't buy it. The realityof the situation is that this will create a virtual express toll lane, which will increase profits for the providers, while stifling innovation and leaving behind small businesses and nonprofits that are unable to afford the extra cost. E-mail has been a God send for non-profits, a change to this resource would be very bad.
In an interview on NPR Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig said, "This would literally be the end of the Internet," who "fears that the next Google won't ever get the chance to establish itself -- because it would be stuck in the slow lane."
I emplore people to take action now and let AOL know that you want the Internet to stay free and open.
I have heard AOL and Yahoo representatives argue on various NPR shows that this new "postage" measure will restore order to a spam-plagued system. Senders paying the certified fee "must promise to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely."
But I also heard Timothy Karr of Free Press points out, Goodmail's scheme will not eliminate spam, but actually increase it: "AOL subscribers will receive certified email in addition to the regular traffic that clutters most inboxes." Additionally, AOL admits that spam isn't as troublesome as it once was. AOL users' spam complaints are down 75 percent from 2003, yet its sophisticated spam filters capture about 20 percent of legitimate mail. Gizmodo reports that "new systems for spam-resistant email have been in the cards for years," but no one can come to any agreement. In the meantime, e-mail providers shouldn't close the free Internet as a quick solution, because as prominent anti-spammer Richard Cox of Spamhaus notes, "[A]n e-mail charge will destroy the spirit of the Internet." A coalition of 50 groups with about 15 million members has formed against the Goodmail scheme, calling it the "first step down a slippery slope that will harm the Internet itself."
The group--including strange bedfellows such as the Gun Owners of America, RightMarch.com, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Center for American Progress--represents four million of AOL's 19.5 million customers. The Gun Owners have threatened that its members will leave AOL if the new fee materializes. A recent poll conducted by the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and Free Press found that "70 percent [of responders] were concerned about providers blocking or impairing their access to Internet services or sites" and 54 percent wanted Congress to write legislation preserving net neutrality. Large technology companies, such as Google, are also fighting against a tiered Internet. "New innovation in the marketplace increases our business," says Google's Vint Cerf, one of the Internet's creators. If start-ups can't go fast, he says, the Internet will be a "zero-sum game."
Broadband providers, such as AT&T, BellSouth, and Verizon, are also looking for ways to make money by destroying net neutrality. Internet sites willing to pay high fees would be given preferential treatment on web, resulting in faster load times for users. "High-bandwidth sites that refused to pay, however, could see their traffic slowed to a crawl, or even blocked in some cases." Telecom firms argue that they have the right to be compensated for building networks. John Thorne, Verizon's senior vice president and deputy general counsel, told a conference that Google shouldn't be enjoying "a free lunch." But Ben Scott at Free Press argues that if the broadband providers get their way, "The next great idea, the next Google or eBay or Napster or whatever, won't have the capital to get themselves in the fast lanes right away. ... The reason the big e-companies were so successful were that they started on the same level playing field as everyone else."
The Senate is taking up the issue of net neutrality. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) will be introducing legislation, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, calling for a "toll-free" Internet and prohibiting "Internet network operators from charging companies for faster delivery of their content to consumers or favoring some content providers over others." Wyden said that his legislation "will make sure all information (transmitted over broadband networks) is made available on the same terms so that no bit is better than another one."
But recent efforts by AOL and Yahoo to create a tiered Internet would tilt the system's level playing field in favor of large wealthy companies. The two e-mail providers have partnered with Goodmail Systems to "charge companies about 1/4 cent to send a message that will bypass spam filters."
E-mails from paying companies will go straight to a user's inbox, but e-mails from non-paying companies will go through the "gauntlet of spam filters that could divert them to a junk-mail folder or strip them of images and Web links," even if they're not spam.
It is being reported in various articles that AOL and Yahoo argue that this measure--set to go into effect for AOL in 30 days--will help reduce spam for users. But I don't buy it. The realityof the situation is that this will create a virtual express toll lane, which will increase profits for the providers, while stifling innovation and leaving behind small businesses and nonprofits that are unable to afford the extra cost. E-mail has been a God send for non-profits, a change to this resource would be very bad.
In an interview on NPR Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig said, "This would literally be the end of the Internet," who "fears that the next Google won't ever get the chance to establish itself -- because it would be stuck in the slow lane."
I emplore people to take action now and let AOL know that you want the Internet to stay free and open.
I have heard AOL and Yahoo representatives argue on various NPR shows that this new "postage" measure will restore order to a spam-plagued system. Senders paying the certified fee "must promise to contact only people who have agreed to receive their messages, or risk being blocked entirely."
But I also heard Timothy Karr of Free Press points out, Goodmail's scheme will not eliminate spam, but actually increase it: "AOL subscribers will receive certified email in addition to the regular traffic that clutters most inboxes." Additionally, AOL admits that spam isn't as troublesome as it once was. AOL users' spam complaints are down 75 percent from 2003, yet its sophisticated spam filters capture about 20 percent of legitimate mail. Gizmodo reports that "new systems for spam-resistant email have been in the cards for years," but no one can come to any agreement. In the meantime, e-mail providers shouldn't close the free Internet as a quick solution, because as prominent anti-spammer Richard Cox of Spamhaus notes, "[A]n e-mail charge will destroy the spirit of the Internet." A coalition of 50 groups with about 15 million members has formed against the Goodmail scheme, calling it the "first step down a slippery slope that will harm the Internet itself."
The group--including strange bedfellows such as the Gun Owners of America, RightMarch.com, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Center for American Progress--represents four million of AOL's 19.5 million customers. The Gun Owners have threatened that its members will leave AOL if the new fee materializes. A recent poll conducted by the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and Free Press found that "70 percent [of responders] were concerned about providers blocking or impairing their access to Internet services or sites" and 54 percent wanted Congress to write legislation preserving net neutrality. Large technology companies, such as Google, are also fighting against a tiered Internet. "New innovation in the marketplace increases our business," says Google's Vint Cerf, one of the Internet's creators. If start-ups can't go fast, he says, the Internet will be a "zero-sum game."
Broadband providers, such as AT&T, BellSouth, and Verizon, are also looking for ways to make money by destroying net neutrality. Internet sites willing to pay high fees would be given preferential treatment on web, resulting in faster load times for users. "High-bandwidth sites that refused to pay, however, could see their traffic slowed to a crawl, or even blocked in some cases." Telecom firms argue that they have the right to be compensated for building networks. John Thorne, Verizon's senior vice president and deputy general counsel, told a conference that Google shouldn't be enjoying "a free lunch." But Ben Scott at Free Press argues that if the broadband providers get their way, "The next great idea, the next Google or eBay or Napster or whatever, won't have the capital to get themselves in the fast lanes right away. ... The reason the big e-companies were so successful were that they started on the same level playing field as everyone else."
The Senate is taking up the issue of net neutrality. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) will be introducing legislation, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, calling for a "toll-free" Internet and prohibiting "Internet network operators from charging companies for faster delivery of their content to consumers or favoring some content providers over others." Wyden said that his legislation "will make sure all information (transmitted over broadband networks) is made available on the same terms so that no bit is better than another one."
Senate Votes to Extend USA Patriot Act.
I am not sure how I feel about this. There are parts of the USA Patriot Act that make sense and needed to be done to keep up with technology, but given as a whole I think I side with Senator Feingold (D-WI) on its passage. Yet yesterday the Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation to renew “the sweeping antiterror law known as the USA Patriot Act.”
Senator Feingold, who was one of ten senators to vote against the bill has vowed to keep working to make it better fit in the constitution. The Senator said, “This fight is not over, Mr. President. … I am convinced that in the end, the government will respond to the people, as it should.”
During the debate Senator Feingold even read the entire US Constitution making sure to emphasize the 4th Ammendment.
Senator Feingold, who was one of ten senators to vote against the bill has vowed to keep working to make it better fit in the constitution. The Senator said, “This fight is not over, Mr. President. … I am convinced that in the end, the government will respond to the people, as it should.”
During the debate Senator Feingold even read the entire US Constitution making sure to emphasize the 4th Ammendment.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
What Bush Was Told About Iraq
It is being reported that two highly classified intelligence reports were delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war, and that they cast grave doubt on many of the key public assertions made not only by President Bush, but also Vice President Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources...
The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists....
The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources
http://hotstory.nationaljournal.com/articles/0302nj1.htm
The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists....
The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources
http://hotstory.nationaljournal.com/articles/0302nj1.htm
Caught on Tape
A newly leaked video from Aug. 28 shows President Bush sitting passively as he is briefed on the killer storm heading directly for the Gulf Coast. Senior officials voice dire predictions including the distinct possibility of severe flooding in New Orleans.
He asks no questions. And when he spoke it was to offer what turned out be unfounded assurances:
"I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever assets and resources we have at our disposal after the storm to help you deal with the loss of property, and we pray for no loss of life, of course."But the fraudulence of Bush's words, of course, was caught on tape as well, in the now-familiar but still searing images of thousands of New Orleans residents stranded for days on rooftops or hellish disaster shelters. Not to mention those who died waiting for help that never came.
The tape, obtained by the Associated Press, clearly contradicts what Bush said three days later to ABC's Diane Sawyer , who was pressing him to explain the slow pace of rescue efforts.
Sawyer: "Mr. President, this morning, as we speak . . . there are people with signs saying 'Help, come get me'. People still in the attic, waving. Nurses are phoning in saying the situation in hospitals is getting ever more dire and the nurses are getting sick because of no clean water. Some of the things they asked our correspondents to ask you is: They expected -- they say to us -- that the day after this hurricane that there would be a massive and visible armada of federal support. There would be boats coming in. There would be food. There would be water. It would be there within hours. They wondered: What's taking so long?"
Bush's response, in part: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we are having to deal with it and will."
Bush told reporters two weeks later that he had been misunderstood.
During a visit to New Orleans, he said: "[W]hat I was referring to is this. When that storm came by, a lot of people said we dodged a bullet. When that storm came through at first, people said, whew. There was a sense of relaxation, and that's what I was referring to. And I, myself, thought we had dodged a bullet. You know why? Because I was listening to people, probably over the airways, say, the bullet has been dodged. And that was what I was referring to."Of course, there were plans in case the levee had been breached. There was a sense of relaxation in the moment, a critical moment. And thank you for giving me a chance to clarify that."
Nevertheless, Bush's quote about not anticipating the breach has become a symbol of his lackluster response to the hurricane.
Even a report from House Republicans recently found that "earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response" because he alone could have cut through all bureaucratic resistance.
Apparently as a rejoinder to the new video, the White House yesterday suddenly sent around a transcript that it previously said didn't exist, from a conference call on the following day. It includes a second-hand account of Bush's activities from Michael Brown, the Bush-appointed FEMA director who later resigned in disgrace, describing the president as engaged, watching TV and asking questions.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said this yesterday: "I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing. He received multiple briefings from multiple officials, and he was completely engaged at all times."
But where, then, is the first-hand evidence of this engagement?
Where is the evidence of Bush's leadership?
The government's response to Hurricane Katrina was (and continues to be) a massive failure.
The new videotape offers a visceral illustration of how some, if not a lot of the blame, lay in a leader who saw his job as expressing unjustified confidence and making empty promises, rather than taking action to make sure his people were safe.
Hurricane Katrina was the second great challenge of Bush's presidency.
Which inevitably makes me think of how Bush responded, in a moment also "caught on tape," to his first. After finding out that the nation was under attack on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush remained frozen in his seat in a Florida classroom for seven minutes.
The grainy video from that classroom, a hallmark of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," can be found at The Memory Hole: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm
A staff report from the 9/11 commission described that morning:"The President was seated in a classroom of second graders when, at approximately 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.' The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis."But even after he left the classroom, he didn't call the Pentagon. He didn't ask if there were other aircraft hijacked or missing. Instead, he and his staff worked on a statement to the press.Faced with challenges like these -- an attack on our nation or a natural disaster bearing down on our shores -- we can reasonably expect that our presidents will stand up, demand answers and options, and lead.
If the White House insists that Bush did that with Hurricane Katrina, it is incumbent upon them to back up that claim up with evidence. Otherwise, the image of him mouthing platitudes threatens to become defining of his presidency.
He asks no questions. And when he spoke it was to offer what turned out be unfounded assurances:
"I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever assets and resources we have at our disposal after the storm to help you deal with the loss of property, and we pray for no loss of life, of course."But the fraudulence of Bush's words, of course, was caught on tape as well, in the now-familiar but still searing images of thousands of New Orleans residents stranded for days on rooftops or hellish disaster shelters. Not to mention those who died waiting for help that never came.
The tape, obtained by the Associated Press, clearly contradicts what Bush said three days later to ABC's Diane Sawyer , who was pressing him to explain the slow pace of rescue efforts.
Sawyer: "Mr. President, this morning, as we speak . . . there are people with signs saying 'Help, come get me'. People still in the attic, waving. Nurses are phoning in saying the situation in hospitals is getting ever more dire and the nurses are getting sick because of no clean water. Some of the things they asked our correspondents to ask you is: They expected -- they say to us -- that the day after this hurricane that there would be a massive and visible armada of federal support. There would be boats coming in. There would be food. There would be water. It would be there within hours. They wondered: What's taking so long?"
Bush's response, in part: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we are having to deal with it and will."
Bush told reporters two weeks later that he had been misunderstood.
During a visit to New Orleans, he said: "[W]hat I was referring to is this. When that storm came by, a lot of people said we dodged a bullet. When that storm came through at first, people said, whew. There was a sense of relaxation, and that's what I was referring to. And I, myself, thought we had dodged a bullet. You know why? Because I was listening to people, probably over the airways, say, the bullet has been dodged. And that was what I was referring to."Of course, there were plans in case the levee had been breached. There was a sense of relaxation in the moment, a critical moment. And thank you for giving me a chance to clarify that."
Nevertheless, Bush's quote about not anticipating the breach has become a symbol of his lackluster response to the hurricane.
Even a report from House Republicans recently found that "earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response" because he alone could have cut through all bureaucratic resistance.
Apparently as a rejoinder to the new video, the White House yesterday suddenly sent around a transcript that it previously said didn't exist, from a conference call on the following day. It includes a second-hand account of Bush's activities from Michael Brown, the Bush-appointed FEMA director who later resigned in disgrace, describing the president as engaged, watching TV and asking questions.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said this yesterday: "I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing. He received multiple briefings from multiple officials, and he was completely engaged at all times."
But where, then, is the first-hand evidence of this engagement?
Where is the evidence of Bush's leadership?
The government's response to Hurricane Katrina was (and continues to be) a massive failure.
The new videotape offers a visceral illustration of how some, if not a lot of the blame, lay in a leader who saw his job as expressing unjustified confidence and making empty promises, rather than taking action to make sure his people were safe.
Hurricane Katrina was the second great challenge of Bush's presidency.
Which inevitably makes me think of how Bush responded, in a moment also "caught on tape," to his first. After finding out that the nation was under attack on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush remained frozen in his seat in a Florida classroom for seven minutes.
The grainy video from that classroom, a hallmark of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," can be found at The Memory Hole: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm
A staff report from the 9/11 commission described that morning:"The President was seated in a classroom of second graders when, at approximately 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: 'A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.' The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis."But even after he left the classroom, he didn't call the Pentagon. He didn't ask if there were other aircraft hijacked or missing. Instead, he and his staff worked on a statement to the press.Faced with challenges like these -- an attack on our nation or a natural disaster bearing down on our shores -- we can reasonably expect that our presidents will stand up, demand answers and options, and lead.
If the White House insists that Bush did that with Hurricane Katrina, it is incumbent upon them to back up that claim up with evidence. Otherwise, the image of him mouthing platitudes threatens to become defining of his presidency.
Who dares to question the Dubai port deal?
Joe Conason writes in the New York Observer about the skreeches from many Editorial Pages against those who are against the Dubai Port deal. He wonders why everyone that is against the deal must be "crazed, racist and xenophobic."
You can find the article on the website WorkingforChange: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20428
Joe states:
One original thinker after another insists that there can be no honest criticism of the Dubai deal. They tell us that every critic, no matter how measured, is a protectionist bigot; and that every argument, no matter how rational, is a calumny against Arabs and Muslims. There is a strange whiff of demagogy in these screeds.
[snip]
Such is the conventional mainstream wisdom, which blesses all trade as "free trade" and venerates corporate globalization as the one truth faith. To question those assumptions, even in the name of national security, is considered a sign of benighted partisanship, economic ignorance or worse.
[snip]
Now all these literary worthies have suddenly acquired profound and unimpeachable knowledge about our ports. With breathtaking arrogance, they claim to know what will make us safe and what might endanger us. According to Mr. Friedman, we need not worry about the takeover of several ports by the government of Dubai, because "the U.S. Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port security, entry and exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the containers, and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos."
---------------
I would like to point out that the Coast Guard only controls some aspects of port security, and does not control any entry or exits.
--------------
Joe goes on to write:
[snip]
According to Mr. Brooks, "nearly every expert who knows something about port security" agrees that there is no reason for worry.
These pundits don't condescend to engage in serious debate. They gush over Dubai's luxury hotels and skyscrapers, without mentioning the utter absence of democracy, transparency and human rights. They praise the United Arab Emirates for behaving like an ally against Al Qaeda, while ignoring its recent connections with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. They seem to think that if any foreign firm is allowed to operate an American port, then a company that is wholly owned by a foreign dictatorship must be treated the same way.
[snip]
If none of that makes sense to you, then you're obviously a racist, bigoted, xenophobic protectionist. Remember that for most if not all critics of the Dubai Ports World takeover, the most troubling issue is the Bush administration's casual approach to vetting the deal. The more we learn about this process, the less confidence we have in it. To doubt the competence of this government is neither xenophobic nor racist.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., an interagency body overseen by the Treasury Department, appears to have performed poorly in examining the Dubai deal. Sadly, that is unsurprising, as the Government Accountability Office pointed out last fall. Like the conventional minds of the newspaper world, Treasury officials tend to value "free trade" above all other considerations, including national security. That is why the G.A.O. has been urging tighter and tougher methods for evaluating foreign investment in critical infrastructure and defense sectors.
As for expertise, the collected knowledge of the nation's newspaper columnists on this subject is considerably less than that of the actual experts who have questioned the deal.
The pundits certainly know less about port security than Clark Kent Ervin, the former inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, who currently directs the Homeland Security Initiative for the Aspen Institute, an impeccably moderate and nonpartisan research center. Mr. Ervin recently confessed his doubts on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times (where certain columnists might have read him while perusing their own work with the usual self-satisfaction).
The pundits also know considerably less than Joseph King, the former Customs Service special agent in charge of counterterrorism for that agency until 2003. They know less than the Coast Guard officers who turn out to have warned the Committee on Foreign Investment of the "intelligence gap" in the Dubai deal after examining classified information.
In other words, those who have exercised actual responsibility for ensuring the security of our ports believe there is ample reason for concern over Dubai. So let the columnists hiss and fulminate -- and let the investigation proceed, with due caution.
You can find the article on the website WorkingforChange: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20428
Joe states:
One original thinker after another insists that there can be no honest criticism of the Dubai deal. They tell us that every critic, no matter how measured, is a protectionist bigot; and that every argument, no matter how rational, is a calumny against Arabs and Muslims. There is a strange whiff of demagogy in these screeds.
[snip]
Such is the conventional mainstream wisdom, which blesses all trade as "free trade" and venerates corporate globalization as the one truth faith. To question those assumptions, even in the name of national security, is considered a sign of benighted partisanship, economic ignorance or worse.
[snip]
Now all these literary worthies have suddenly acquired profound and unimpeachable knowledge about our ports. With breathtaking arrogance, they claim to know what will make us safe and what might endanger us. According to Mr. Friedman, we need not worry about the takeover of several ports by the government of Dubai, because "the U.S. Coast Guard still controls all aspects of port security, entry and exits; the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the containers, and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos."
---------------
I would like to point out that the Coast Guard only controls some aspects of port security, and does not control any entry or exits.
--------------
Joe goes on to write:
[snip]
According to Mr. Brooks, "nearly every expert who knows something about port security" agrees that there is no reason for worry.
These pundits don't condescend to engage in serious debate. They gush over Dubai's luxury hotels and skyscrapers, without mentioning the utter absence of democracy, transparency and human rights. They praise the United Arab Emirates for behaving like an ally against Al Qaeda, while ignoring its recent connections with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. They seem to think that if any foreign firm is allowed to operate an American port, then a company that is wholly owned by a foreign dictatorship must be treated the same way.
[snip]
If none of that makes sense to you, then you're obviously a racist, bigoted, xenophobic protectionist. Remember that for most if not all critics of the Dubai Ports World takeover, the most troubling issue is the Bush administration's casual approach to vetting the deal. The more we learn about this process, the less confidence we have in it. To doubt the competence of this government is neither xenophobic nor racist.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., an interagency body overseen by the Treasury Department, appears to have performed poorly in examining the Dubai deal. Sadly, that is unsurprising, as the Government Accountability Office pointed out last fall. Like the conventional minds of the newspaper world, Treasury officials tend to value "free trade" above all other considerations, including national security. That is why the G.A.O. has been urging tighter and tougher methods for evaluating foreign investment in critical infrastructure and defense sectors.
As for expertise, the collected knowledge of the nation's newspaper columnists on this subject is considerably less than that of the actual experts who have questioned the deal.
The pundits certainly know less about port security than Clark Kent Ervin, the former inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, who currently directs the Homeland Security Initiative for the Aspen Institute, an impeccably moderate and nonpartisan research center. Mr. Ervin recently confessed his doubts on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times (where certain columnists might have read him while perusing their own work with the usual self-satisfaction).
The pundits also know considerably less than Joseph King, the former Customs Service special agent in charge of counterterrorism for that agency until 2003. They know less than the Coast Guard officers who turn out to have warned the Committee on Foreign Investment of the "intelligence gap" in the Dubai deal after examining classified information.
In other words, those who have exercised actual responsibility for ensuring the security of our ports believe there is ample reason for concern over Dubai. So let the columnists hiss and fulminate -- and let the investigation proceed, with due caution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
