The Political Chase

Congress may probe David Addington’s lawyerly ‘professional expertise’

Pull up a chair — you may need it. David Addington, Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, has indicated he might testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

Anyone familiar with Cheney’s Cheney, a commonly used reference to Addington, will know that Addingtion even acknowledging the Congress exists is completely out of character for the notorious Chief of Staff to the Veep.

Kathryn Wheelburger (Cheney’s counsel) wrote a letter, on behalf of Addington, to Chairman John Conyers indicating Addington might appear before the Committee’s hearing on torture, provided the Committee agreed, in advance, to ask questions “substantially narrower in scope” than those set forth in Conyers’ initial request.

Conyers scheduled the hearing after ABC News ran a story on April 9 about the White House “Enhanced Interrogation” program, which involved top Bush administration officials including Cheney. Although Wheelburger indicated Addington would consider appearing, it is doubtful Addington will offer anything substantive based on the prerequisites Wheelburger specified.

Addington will not answer any questions related to any communications between Addington, Cheney, and Bush; presidential powers; torture policies; Cheney’s “Senate functions;” or detainees. In addition, Addington may invoke executive privilege at his pleasure.

So, the question is, what can Addington talk about?  He can "share" his "professional expertise" as an attorney.

Wheelburger wrote that if the committee “still wishes to pursue its request” and accepts the White House’s conditions, Addington will as a “matter of comity” accept the “timely service” of a subpoena. As repugnant and arrogant as that may be, it seems to pale in light of where Addington’s allegiance resides, which is not the people, as evidenced in Wheelburger’s closing statement:

We hope and expect that the Committee will recognize the importance of protecting the institution of the Vice Presidency under the Constitution, so that present and future Vice Presidents can continue to serve America effectively.

Indeed. The Unitary Executive must be protected above all else.

Bush Admin, Military-Industrial Complex, TV Scam Exposed

I haven’t read all of it yet, but wanted to get this out. The New York Times has published a huge piece exposing a cabal involving "military analysts" that frequently appear on newscasts, the Bush administration, and the military-industrial complex.

Not sure where it all leads to yet, but just these grafs alone are enough to attract serious attention.

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantanamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantanamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Rule of law, So!

Looseheadprop at FDL has a post today about an assertion of power and authority by the Bush administration that is so incredible, not even suspension of disbelief can keep one from being shocked to the core, or at least not me. Reviewing an analysis Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) did of John Yoo’s memos, Loosehead highlights two of Sheldon’s findings. One assertion the Bush administration made is remarkably incredulous, but the second is beyond shocking.

The first finding:

[T]he good Senator launched into the topic of the Yoo memos. He had several great pickups. For example: that definiton of torture Yoo used, you know “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure ….”, that one? Do you know where it comes from? 42 USC Section 1395w-22, a Medicare reimbursement statute! I kid you not.

And how did we get to the point where the highly respected Office of Legal Counsel was using Medicare reimbursement statutes – statutes utterly irrelevant to the interrogation of suspected terrorists – to justify its legal analysis on this issue?

Making matters worse, this “legal analysis” was used to justify the legality of a certain coercive interrogation technique that regrettably has become familiar to us all, “water-boarding.”

As outlandish as that is, it pales in comparison to this finding.

1) An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it;
2) The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II; and
3) The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

It was bad enough when Richard Nixon made the statement: "If the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” But the Bush administration had the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel sanction Nixon’s statement, in essence, under the law, and thereby govern the nation accordingly.

Read Looseheadprop’s post.

War Crimes

Strong, provocative title, I know. Regrettably, it is appropriate and applicable.

On March 10, 2005, I wrote that Bush and Cheney should be impeached. With stories like Jan Crawford Greenburg’s  — "Top Bush Advisors Approved ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ " — it is appropriate to add War Crimes and a few other names to the list, starting with Condoleezza Rice.

The video is the report ABC had on World News Tonight.

(h/t Think Progress)

Frontline: Bush’s War

Just a reminder. Part 2 of PBS’s new Frontline series “Bush’s War” is scheduled for tonight.

If you missed Part 1 and want to watch it before tonight’s show, the entire program is available for viewing online. I’m sure they will run numerous schedules of the show, so its not as if you can’t catch it later.

I did not know the program was airing, but found out just in time to catch Part 1 last night. It’s a very well done documentary on the prelude to war and the war itself.

Part 1 is the prelude to war; the Bush administration (viz. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al.) trumping up its bogus case to invade Iraq, beginning on 9/11, and then successfully selling it to the American people, Congress, and allies.

Lots of focus on the CIA, Darth Vader Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other influential neocons in Part 1. Bush has little significant show time in Part 1 other than as Stooge-in-Chief.

Part 2 is broadcast tonight and begins with the actual invasion and goes to ???

Catch it if you can, it will be well with your time.

Report: 2008 War Costs $144B

The 2008 cost of the war is now estimated at $12 billion per month or $144 billion for the entire year according to a new report. That’s three times the “burn” rate of its earliest years.

Hmm…I seem to recall Donald Rumsfeld said the entire war would cost at most $50 to $60 billion. I also seem to recall Rumsfeld fired a general for making the mistake of saying the war cost something like more than $100 billion. And then there was Einstein’s Paul Wolfowitz’s claim that post-invasion oil revenues would more than pay for cost of the war

Keep in mind the $12 billion is for 2008 only. Looking forward, the authors of the report estimate the cumulative costs of the war may be as high as $2.7 trillion.

Beyond 2008, working with “best-case” and “realistic-moderate” scenarios, they project the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion — or more — by 2017.

Interest on money borrowed to pay those costs could alone add $816 billion to that bottom line, they say.

History teaches us today’s estimate for war costs are never equal to tomorrow’s actuals. Of course one has to consider who’s doing the estimating and personal agendas at that time, but if Rummy said in 2002 the maximum war cost would be $60 billion, just think what it might be in 2017 if today’s estimate is $2.7 trillion. And you can bet your derrière we’ll still be in Iraq five years from now if John McCain is president. Remember, he’s the “conservative” with a 100-year Iraq war plan.

It is instructional to remember Eisenhower’s prescient warning in 1961 about the dangers of the military-industrial complex:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

And persist they did indeed.

It is also important to bear in mind President Bush’s proposed $3.1 trillion budget for 2009 will leave a $400 billion deficit and does not include funding for the war. What’s another $150 billion for just one-year’s expense and a few hundred more dead soldiers to propagate Bush Democracy?

When it comes to topics such as this (excluding the loss of soldiers lives), I often think of Willie Nelson and chuckle to myself. Several years ago Willie had a pretty big problem with the IRS. They said he owed them $15 million in back taxes, but Willie was unable to pay what the IRS claimed he owed. When asked about his IRS tale of woe, Willie said, “If you owe the IRS a million dollars, you’ve got a problem. If you owe the IRS $15 million, they have a problem.”

More on WH visitors ruling

Following up on the federal judge’s ruling today that the White House must turn over its visitors log, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth…ordered the Secret Service to produce records within 20 days. However, there may be nothing to produce.

The judge, in a separate ruling Monday, said he lacked the authority to order the Secret Service to stop destroying its visitor records once copies were turned over to White House officials. But Lamberth noted the National Archives had to approve any destruction of the logs.

And the outlook could get bleaker. considering the administration’s spending on paper shredding has increased more than 600 percent since Bush took office, and as illustrated, it dramatically increased during the second term.

Graph by John Cook

John Cook reports the federal government spent $452,807 in 2000 for paper-shredding related costs. By 2006, the costs increased to $2.9 million, and by “halfway through 2007, the feds almost matched that number, with $2.7 million and counting.”

If the administration does not appeal today’s ruling, well…let’s just say maybe they didn’t feel like it was worth the effort — kind of like Scooter Libby’s appeal.

On a side note, look at the chart and consider the timing of these events. Invade Iraq in March 2003. By early 2004 it was pretty well established there were no WMD’s in Iraq. In July 2003, Bob Novak outed Valerie Wilson, prompting the CIA Leak Case. In 2005, the CIA Leak Case investigation exploded, culminating with Libby’s indictment in October. Also, in December 2005, the New York Times exposed the warrantless wiretapping. But there’s no correlation I’m sure. All just fun facts to know and tell.

Thanks to John Cook and Radar for the chart and metrics. Also h/t to Campus Progress.

Destroyed CIA tapes fit Bush patterns

The New York Times’ revelation yesterday that the CIA in 2005 destroyed videotapes documenting interrogations of Al Qaeda operatives conducted in 2002 has far-reaching implications that span the Bush administration — obstruction of justice, war crimes, and if even possible, further deterioation of the country’s standing in the international community. And as expected, Democrats are on the war path.

First, the 9/11 Commission, a Congressional inquiry begun in 2002, and the judge presiding over the trail of Zacharias Moussaoui both requested interrogation related information. Destroying the evidence and refusing to acknowledge it existed is obstruction of justice. But those are irrelavent according to CIA Director Michael Hayden.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden acknowledged the destruction of the tapes in a message distributed to the CIA workforce. Hayden said the tapes had been destroyed in 2005 “only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries.”

Does anybody really believe that excuse? Hayden obviously is a graduate of the Dick Cheney School of Government. Congress demanded the information, the courts demanded the information, but Hayden’s decision trumps the Constitutional authority of Congress and the courts. It simply fits the pattern and policies — deception and felonious behavior — that have dominated the Bush administration.

Second, this will be a real test for Michael Mukasey’s integrity. Will he initiate the appropriate investigations or will he cover for the Bush administration as Alberto Gonzales and others have done in the past?

Third, this again raises issues of war crimes committed by the administration — waterboarding is a violation of international laws and treaties. Although the Times piece did not specifically state waterboarding was documented in the videotapes, NBC News citing “officials,” reports the “videos included the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, the leader in charge of al-Qaida’s training camps.” That is a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Democrats have expressed outraged and called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the matter. Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), said she “cautioned C.I.A. officials [in 2003] not to destroy any videotapes pertaining to interrogation practices.” (Also see this post)

“This matter must be promptly and fully investigated,” said Ms. Harman, now head of the Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence and terrorism risk assessment. She noted that in early 2003 she received “a highly classified briefing” on C.I.A. interrogation practices from the agency’s general counsel, and that she had expressed “serious concerns” in a letter to the lawyer afterward.

“I call for my letter of February 2003, which was never responded to and has been in the C.I.A.’s files ever since, to be declassified,” the Congresswoman said.

An outraged Ted Kennedy said, “We haven’t seen anything like this since the 18½ -minute gap on the tapes of Richard Nixon.”

The root cause of State Dept. contractor problems

I am not convinced the proper message is getting through as the press continues to report on the poor results achieved as a result of the State Department hiring contractors to provide security services. Today the New York Times focuses on Dyncorp, and in a somewhat broader sense, the Bush administration’s use of contractors for various functions and services throughout the government. While none of the allegations made about Dyncorp and the State Department today should be trivialized, they are unquestionably a subset of a systemic issue throughout the Bush administration with respect to privatizing government services. The real issues are privatization policies in general and how efficiently they are managed throughout the administration.

At this late date in the Bush administration, there is relatively little that can be done to address the systemic issues because the root cause is quite simply George Bush’s catastrophic management of bad decisions and policies.

As the Times reported, George Bush has outsourced an incredibly large segment of the government, but has not managed the outsourcing, which always results in failure. That’s a very broad and strong indictment that I cannot possibly support in the confines of a single post; however, many years of successful outsourcing experience qualifies me to render that opinion.

The administration has obviously outsourced government operations and services to contractors such as Dyncorp and Blackwater, and basically walked away from those functions with an expectation they will be properly managed by the contractor simply because a contract exists between the two parties. Successful outsourcing simply does not work that way. These few passages from today’s article support my argument.

State Department contracting officials complain that they do not have nearly enough people to properly oversee the more than 2,500 contractors now under their informal command around the world.

The Bush administration has doubled the amount of government money going to all types of contractors to $400 billion, creating a new and thriving class of post-9/11 corporations carrying out delicate work for the government. But the number of government employees issuing, managing and auditing contracts has barely grown.

The only real solution is to fire the incompetent president, but since the government is not Acme Corp. firing the incompetent manager is not an option — plain and simple. This is what we get for electing an idiot with a long-standing history of failure after failure. Congress can only approach these issues tactically as they arise, deal with them to the extent possible, and wait for the Decider to go back to Crawford, unless he is impeached otherwise .

Read it and weep

(update below)

I read the transcript of Gen. Sanchez’s remarks at the Military Reporters and Editors Luncheon. The Times piece was revealing, but there’s only so much that can be captured in a 1,000-word piece. The full speech is gut-wrenching; a powerful and incredibly troubling address that is fully capable of rendering tears from the strongest man or woman with an ounce of patriotism, and contemplates how much George Bush has damaged this country.

The first half of the speech is a damning indictment of the press, but it pales in comparison to the second-half condemnation of the Bush administration and the Republicans that controlled Congress for so long, and continues to do so today via filibusters. Democrats did not come out unscathed, but it is abundantly clear where Sanchez focused his remarks.

As I mentioned earlier, I spot-checked some of the Right-Wing, We’re-Never-Wrong, Party-Above-Country, Patriot-Police blogs and was admittedly surprised, especially considering what I initially thought would be the tenor of the Above Reproach Group.

Sanchez articulated one of the most troubling personal assessments of the war I have read, but that was not important to the Above Reproach Group. Instead, they turned their vigilante rhetoric on the media for failing to adequately report (their view, not mine) Sanchez’s harsh remarks about the press.

Power Line obviously established the initial talking points for this narcissistic, say-anything-to-divert-negative-blowback, slanderous crowd.

If the Bush administration gets attacked, the press will report it. But what if someone attacks the press? If the attack goes unreported, did it ever really happen?

 

…The Post has an agenda, and those headlines wouldn’t have advanced it. The same is true for essentially all newspapers and other news outlets.

 

It’s quite a luxury to be able to decide whether criticisms of your own conduct ever see the light of day–a luxury the mainstream media not only enjoy, but abuse.

Allahpundit at Hot Air was in lockstep with Power Line, but given this blogger’s blowback on Sanchez’s war assessment, it is hard to believe he/she/it fully read or comprehended the speech in spite of making specific reference to the transcript. (Emphasis in original).

[Media accounts] of the speech are emphasizing his withering attack on the conduct of the war over his equally withering attack on the media’s coverage of it…It’s not that they focus more on his criticism of the war than on his criticism of the media; it’s that the criticism of the media is omitted entirely.

 

The amazing thing about the second half of the speech, where he takes on the war, is how vague, redundant, and unrealistic it is as a prescription for what to do now.

PoliPundit was unable to grasp what Sanchez said, but did not have a problem following the Established Talking Points. (Emphasis in original.)

What did Lt. Gen Ricardo Sanchez actually say?…This appears to be another case of the media, hold it, shock, making things up out of whole cloth.

And then there’s Hugh Hewitt. No one would dare question Mr. Hewitt’s sound commentary and analysis.

The Washington Post and others have wrongly suggested that Sanchez’s primary targets were within the Bush Administration.

Zabrina at Thought You’d Never Ask is also in perfect lockstep.

Powerline got my attention this morning by pointing out how the media attended and then deep-sixed the very newsworthy tongue-lashing delivered to it yesterday by General Ricardo Sanchez.

Sanchez’s criticism of the media was appropriate and justified — there needs to be more of the same — but declaring the media’s failure to publicly criticize itself as the salient point of the speech is at minimum incredulous.

Although the full transcript is available, several excerpts of Sanchez’s speech are below. I have not included press-related excerpts. That by no means is a direct or indirect minimization of Sanchez’s criticism of the press. It’s simply a matter of what’s more important and keeping this post from being a mile long.  

As we all know war is an extension of politics and when a nation goes to war it must bring to bear all elements of power in order to win. Warfighting is not solely the responsibility of the military commander unless he has been given the responsibility and resources to synchronize the political, economic and informational power of the nation. So who is responsible for developing the grand strategy that will allow America to emerge victorious from this generational struggle against extremism?

 

After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve “victory” in that war torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism. From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan to the administration’s latest “surge” strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize its political, economic and military power. The latest “revised strategy” is a desperate attempt by an administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war and they have definitely not communicated that reality to the American people. An even worse and more disturbing assessment is that America cannot achieve the political consensus necessary to devise a grand strategy that will synchronize and commit our national power to achieve victory in Iraq. Some of you have heard me talk about our nation’s crisis in leadership. Let me elaborate.

 

While the politicians espouse their rhetoric designed to preserve their reputations and their political power -our soldiers die! Our national leadership ignored the lessons of WWII as we entered into this war and to this day continue to believe that victory can be achieved through the application of military power alone.

 

…Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory. The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat. The administration, Congress and the entire interagency, especially the Department of State, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the American people must hold them accountable.

 

There has been a glaring, unfortunate, display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders. As a Japanese proverb says, “action without vision is a nightmare.” There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.

 

Since 2003, the politics of war have been characterized by partisanship as the Republican and Democratic parties struggled for power in Washington. National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics that have prevented us from devising effective, executable, supportable solutions. At times, these partisan struggles have led to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had greater priority than our national security objectives….There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope.

 

…Congress must shoulder a significant responsibility for this failure since there has been no focused oversight of the nation’s political and economic initiatives in this war. Exhortations, encouragements, investigations, studies and discussions will not produce success – this appears to be the nation’s only alternative since the transfer of sovereignty. Our continued neglect will only extend the conflict.

 

…Our commanders on the ground will continue to make progress and provide time for the development of a grand strategy. That will be wasted effort as we have seen repeatedly since 2003. In the mean time our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will continue to die.

 

…Starting in July 2003, the message repeatedly communicated to Washington by military commanders on the ground was that the military alone could never achieve “victory” in Iraq. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were destined to endure decades of fighting and killing people without the focused, synchronized application of all elements of national power.

 

…By neglect and incompetence at the National Security Council level, that is the path our political leaders chose and now America, more precisely the American military, finds itself in an intractable situation. Clearly, mistakes have been made by the American military in its application of power but even its greatest failures in this war can be linked to America’s lack of commitment, priority and moral courage in this war effort. Without the sacrifices of our magnificent young men and women in uniform, Iraq would be chaotic well beyond anything experienced to date.

 

What America must accept as a reality at this point in the war is that our Army and Marine Corps are struggling with the deployment schedules. What is clear is that the deployment cycles of our formations has been totally disrupted, the resourcing and training challenges are significant and America’s ability to sustain a force level of 150,000(+) is nonexistent without drastic measures that have been politically unacceptable to date. The drawdown of the surge to pre-surge levels was never a question. America must understand that it will take the army at least a decade to fix the damage that has been done to its full spectrum readiness. The president’s recent statement to America that he will listen to military commanders is a matter of political expediency.

 

…America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East. If this occurs, it would have significant adverse effects on the international community. Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy, we must move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the Iraqis maximum ability to exercise their sovereignty in achieving a solution.

 

At no time in America’s history has there been a greater need for bipartisan cooperation. The threat of extremism is real and demands unified action at the same levels demonstrated by our forefathers during World War I and World War II. America has failed to date.

 

This endeavor has further been hampered by a coalition effort that can be characterized as hasty, un-resourced and often uncoordinated and unmanaged. Desperately needed, but essentially ignored, were the political and economic coalitions that were the key to victory and stability in the immediate aftermath of the conventional war. The military coalition which was hastily put together in the summer of 2003 was problematic given the multitude of national caveats, inadequate rules of engagement and other restrictions on the forces deployed…Today, we continue our inept coalition management efforts and, in fact, we are facing ever decreasing troop commitments by our military coalition partners. America’s “revised” strategy does not address coalition initiatives and challenges. We cannot afford to continue this struggle without the support of our coalition partners across all elements of national power. Without the political and economic elements of power complementing the tremendous efforts of our military, America is assured of failure. We continue on that path. America’s political leadership must come together and develop a bipartisan grand strategy to achieve victory in this conflict.

 

Achieving unity of effort in Iraq has been elusive to date primarily because there is no entity that has the authority to direct action by our interagency. Our National Security Council has been a catastrophic failure. Furthermore, America’s ability to hold the interagency accountable for their failures in this war is non-existent. This must change. As a nation we must recognize that the enemy we face is committed to destroying our way of life. This enemy is arguably more dangerous than any threat we faced in the twentieth century. Our political leaders must place national security objectives above partisan politics, demand interagency unity of effort, and never again commit America to war without a grand strategy that embraces the basic tenets of the Powell doctrine.

 

It seems that Congress recognizes that the military cannot achieve victory alone in this war. Yet they continue to demand victory from our military. Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leaders involved in the management this war? They have unquestionably been derelict in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these type of leaders would immediately be relieved or court-martialed.

 

America has sent our soldiers off to war and they must be supported at all costs until we achieve victory or until our political leaders decide to bring them home. Our political and military leaders owe the soldier on the battlefield the strategy, the policies and the resources to win once committed to war. America has not been fully committed to win this war. As the military commanders on the ground have stated since the summer of 2003, the U. S. Military alone cannot win this war…Our nation has not focused on the greatest challenge of our lifetime. The political and economic elements of power must get beyond the politics to ensure the survival of America. Partisan politics have hindered this war effort and America should not accept this. America must demand a unified national strategy that goes well beyond partisan politics and places the common good above all else. Too often our politicians have chosen loyalty to their political party above loyalty to the Constitution because of their lust for power. Our politicians must remember their oath of office and recommit themselves to serving our nation and not their own self-interests or political party. The security of America is at stake and we can accept nothing less. Anything short of this is unquestionably dereliction of duty.

Update:  The following sentence was revised to convey the intended context. Original: “The full speech is gut-wrenching; a powerful and incredibly troubling address that is fully capable of rendering tears from the strongest man or woman with an ounce of patriotism.” Revised version: “The full speech is gut-wrenching; a powerful and incredibly troubling address that is fully capable of rendering tears from the strongest man or woman with an ounce of patriotism, and contemplates how much George Bush has damaged this country.”

Transcript Ricardo Sanchez Military Reporters Meeting

Based on several posts I read on other blogs regarding Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez’s address yesterday at the Military Reporters and Editors meeting, I quickly realized reading the transcript is a prerequisite. However, the “official” transcript is very difficult to read (all upper case, etc.). We fixed that.

Military Reporters appears to be the “official” transcript holder, but you can download a copy of the TPC-enhanced version here (.pdf). Please note the disclaimer at the top of the transcript’s first page.

If you really enjoy self-inflicted pain, and really want the raw transcript, go here.

I’ll comment on what some of the other blogs are saying a little later.

The Revolt of the Generals

The profound criticism Lt. Gen. Sanchez levied on the Bush administration yesterday will come as no surprise to critics of the administration’s war policies, and it will surely generate an overwhelming denouncement of Sanchez from the Far Right. In all likelihood, one can safely presume the neocon’s response to be conveniently, and intentionally, myopic. It will be all Sanchez, all the time.

But Sanchez does not stand alone by any means. The fact of the matter is, the level of criticism thrust upon the administration by military leaders is indeed quite rare from a historical perspective, and consequently hard to rebuke.

Enter The Revolt of the Generals.

The generals acted independently, coming in their own ways to the agonizing decision to defy military tradition and publicly criticize the Bush administration over its conduct of the war in Iraq.

What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation’s history.

In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.

The active-duty generals followed procedure, sending reports up the chain of command. The retired generals beseeched old friends in powerful positions to use their influence to bring about a change.

When their warnings were ignored, some came to believe it was their patriotic duty to speak out, even if it meant terminating their careers.

It was a decision none of the men approached cavalierly. Most were political conservatives who had voted for George W. Bush and initially favored his appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary.

But they felt betrayed by Bush and his advisers.

“The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media,” said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. “But this administration is immune to good advice.”

Presently, I have not taken a comprehensive tour of the Right-Wing self-proclaimed-punditry to evaluate the spewed venom, but I have little doubt as to what the predominant thesis is or will be. The neocons will attempt to eviscerate Sanchez with an Abu Ghraib scalpel, but that argument is largely without merit, with the possible exception that Sanchez should have blown the whistle on his civilian leaders long ago, which is a separate and complicated topic altogether.

It is a well established fact that the Abu Ghraib atrocities originated directly from the White House, and more specifically from the Office of the Vice President.

So, let the Right-Wing comedians raise their banter and declarations of “phoney soldiers.” It will be no different today than it has been for years - the psychobabble of rhetorical vigilantes.

Late Update: Get a copy of the transcript of Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s remarks here.

Review of proposed FISA changes

After a markup session yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee passed the RESTORE Act with (The Responsible Electronic Surveillance that is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007) after incorporating three amendments submitted during the markup session. Overall, the changes made yesterday do not drastically alter the overall provisions of the bill as introduced on October 9 (summary, full text).

Following are summaries of the three amendments and their respective sponsor(s). I am almost certain the Jackson-Lee and Scott amendments were limited to wordsmithing. For example adding the modifier “significant” to the word “purpose.” I do not have any information on the Nadler amendment at this time beyond the summary provided below.

Jackson-Lee (TX): An amendment to clarify the bill’s language and prevent “reverse targeting” by requiring the Administration to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a “significant purpose of an acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be located in the United States” rather than waiting until said person formally becomes a target.

 

Nadler (NY): An amendment to improve court oversight over the government’s compliance with the FISA Court’s orders by requiring the court to assess compliance with its orders as opposed to merely authorizing it to do so and by removing limitations on its review.

 

Scott (VA): An amendment to the bill’s auditing and reporting requirements. The current standard is that acquisition must be with the “significant purpose” of gathering foreign intelligence. The amendment seeks to obtain information about what additional purposes for which the government may be collecting.

Given the significance of this bill, a comparative review of the current and proposed legislation may be helpful, but first let’s take a moment to summarize the evolution of the surveillance bills for clarity.

FISA —> PAA —> RESTORE Act

The first post-Watergate intelligence surveillance statue, FISA, was passed in 1978 and has been modified numerous times over the years. In general terms, the statute and applicable revisions have continued to be commonly referred to as FISA. In August of this year, immediately prior to the summer recess, Congress acquiesced to the Bush-Cheney administration’s fabricated terror threat and chest-pounding to pass the Protect America Act (PAA), a temporary law, which gave Bush carte-blanche to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on anybody, anywhere, void of any oversight, controls, or regulations. In some regards, one could easily argue he had been doing it for six years and had no intentions of changing, so what difference did it really make. A terrible argument, but unfortunately realistic.

The PAA superceded FISA’s specifications and regulations, therefore, what is actually being addressed today via the RESTORE Act are the provisions of the PAA. Consequently, the matrix below provides a comparison between the current law, PAA, and the proposed legislation, the RESTORE Act. 

 The RESTORE Act (HR 3773) vs. the PAA

On a side note, last night, or probably better stated, early this morning, I fired off a letter about the proposed FISA changes to my respective Members of Congress. In addition to blasting the Bush-Cheney administration for its relentless lawbreaking, I believe I made it clear that I was not pleased with the attitude Congress is assuming with this bill in particular, as well as their overall complacent posture. That’s a bit ironic isn’t it? What kind of posture do invertebrates have? Well, at minimum we know they can’t qualify for biped status.

If you have not contacted your Senators or Representative about this issue (and hopefully others), and don’t have time to compose a personal letter, you are welcome to use mine as a template. Of course, the “template” is complete — all the hyperbole, over-the-top rhetoric, and requisite derriere-kissing a wingnut could possibly need.

The letter I have provided is addressed to a Representative, which can easily be modified slightly to accommodate Senators.

Download the letter here (pdf).

Jimmy Carter Rips Cheney A New One

In an interview with the BBC yesterday, former President Jimmy Carter launched a scathing attack on the Bush administration, and Dick Cheney in particular.  When asked about the conflict between Cheney and Condoleezza Rice over Israel’s attack on Syria, Carter pounced on Cheney’s long-standing militant position, the countless mistakes Cheney has made, draft-dodging, and Cheney’s continuing delusions about Iraq.

Partial Transcript:

BBC:  There was a report in the New York Times today that said there was a division within the administration, once again between Dick Cheney, the Vice president, and Condoleezza Rice, about how Syria should be engaged — this is following the recent Israeli air strike against a Syrian target.

Intelligence reports say that there was some nascent nuclear activity there, perhaps imported from NK, in that particular building. The Syrians deny it. Condoleezza Rice thinks one should continue along diplomatic track. Dick Cheney says its time for preemptive strikes, like the ones that we’ve seen. Where do you stand?

CARTER:  As usual, Dick Cheney is wrong.

He’s a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world. And, here he’s trying again to promote what might very well be a counterproductive and catastrophic military adventure.

I’m filled with admiration for Condoleezza Rice in standing up to him, which she did even when she was in the White House under President George W. Bush. Now, Secretary of State, her influence is obviously greater than it was then, and I hope she prevails.

BBC:  You don’t mince your words on Dick Cheney do you?

CARTER:  Well, you know he’s been a disaster for our country. I think he’s been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he’s prevailed.

It was one of his main commitments was to go into Iraq under false pretenses, and he still maintains those false pretenses are accurate. He still maintains that somehow Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack. He still maintains that Iraq somehow or another had weapons of mass destruction - claims that have been disproven [sic] by all reasonable sources.

Give ‘em hell Jimmy.  The video is available here.

Republicans ask Waxman to postpone Blackwater hearing

(Update below)

This past Friday, seven House Republicans asked Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-MI) to postpone a Blackwater USA hearing scheduled for tomorrow until the State Department and the U.S.-Iraq Joint Commission release their reports.

I bet they do want the investigation delayed until after those reports are “revealed.” Cheney probably needs a little time to stamp every document that is remotely related (or not) classified and vet the reports. Indeed. For Waxman to have even considered having a hearing before Cheney had an opportunity to complete Unitary Executive Oversight was unconscionable and reprehensible.

Waxman was apparently not impressed with their request since he sent a memorandum to the committee (pdf) today outlining the objectives of the hearing and details of newly discovered information about Blackwater.

Previously undisclosed information reveals (1) Blackwater has engaged in 195 “escalation of force” incidents since 2005, an average of 1.4 per week, including over 160 incidents in which Blackwater forces fired first; (2) after a drunken Blackwater contractor shot the guard of the Iraqi Vice President, the State Department allowed the contractor to leave Iraq and advised Blackwater on the size of the payment needed “to help them resolve this”; and (3) Blackwater, which has received over $1 billion in federal contracts since 2001, is charging the federal government over $1,200 per day for each “protective security specialist” employed by the company.

The Republicans requesting the delay are: Representatives Dan Burton (IN), Christopher Cannon (UT), Darrell Issa (CA), Patrick McHenry (NC), John Mica (FL), Mark Souder (IN), and Lynn Westmoreland (GA).

Witnesses at tomorrow’s hearing will include:

• Erik Prince, Chairman, the Prince Group, LLC and Blackwater USA
• Ambassador David M. Satterfield, Special Adviser, Coordinator for Iraq, Department of State
• Ambassador Richard J. Griffin, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Diplomatic Security and Director of the Office of Foreign Missions, Department of State
• William H. Moser, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics Management, Department of State

Late Update: The hearing has begun and Chairman Waxman has decided to not to address the shooting incidents of September 16 “in a public forum” today.