Donle’s Daily Dispatches

Volume 1 Issue 135                 Today’s News and Views         Friday, May 12, 2006

Donle's Daily Dispatches RSS News Feeds

Latest news and opinion headlines from NPR, BBC, NY Times, etc.

See the cost in your community

The Gross National Debt

Update of US Casualties in Iraq: 2436

Update of US Casualties in Afghanistan: 295

Figures provided by the Iraq Coalition Causality website

Listen to Air America Radio while reading today's news and views

Today's News and Views

05.10.2006

Two Addictions that Cripple the Left

Have you ever noticed how frantically eager some people are to tell you how hopeless the state of the world is? Point to any tiny progressive victory or corporate concession and they'll rush in to smother your tiny ray of light in dreary counter-examples, as if it were an outbreak of crabgrass threatening their carefully manicured lawn of misery.

Perhaps they think being a wet-blanket demonstrates superior radical understanding--a better analysis. But depression is not intelligence, and hopelessness leads to paralysis. It's the small immediate victories that motivate people to get started and keep going--not distant grandiose fantasies. Talking of big changes both scares people who fear change and exhausts those who want it. Small, reachable goals build confidence and attract allies. The put-downs of tragedy-addicted leftists, on the other hand ("Oh, yeah, but that's just a drop in the bucket! Meanwhile the multinationals are blah blah blah, and the government is blah blah blah, and look what's happening in blah blah blah!") de-motivate, discourage, and depress.

This addiction to tragedy sabotages people working to create positive changes in the world.

An even more crippling addiction is purism.

The neo-cons successfully built a coalition of people who disagreed on many points, but came together around the basic goal of gaining power and defeating the left. Their motto is: "anyone who agrees with us on any issue is on our team".

The left has the opposite 'strategy': 'Anyone we disagree with to any degree on any issue is the evil enemy and can't play on our team'.

The result: Right: Great Big Team. Left: itty bitty team.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Militant leftists tend to lump all their opponents--fundamentalists, traditional Republicans, the military, corporations--into one giant, evil, monolithic conspiracy, leaving themselves utterly paralysed.

If a viable candidate doesn't have a perfect progressive score on their issues-check-list, for example, they'll advise voters to vote for a nonviable candidate instead. Letting the most conservative candidate win is supposed to "teach" the more liberal candidate "a lesson".

Dogbert himself couldn't engineer a more self-destructive system.

Leftists need to be willing to ally themselves with anyone to attain specific goals. Multi-national corporations that aren't in the arms business, for example, are anti-war--it's bad for business. When NATO bombed Belgrade in the 1990s, the managing director of McDonald's in Serbia supported the Serbian cause wholeheartedly, and had his employees hand out free cheeseburgers at anti-American rallies. McDonald's in the U.S. gave him a bonus for keeping his restaurants open.

Many corporate executives are also beginning to take the long view on the environment, for business reasons. As Jared Diamond points out, "if environmentalists aren't willing to engage with big businesses, which are among the most powerful forces in the modern world, it won't be possible to solve the world's environmental problems."

But when a corporation corrects eleven of its twelve bad environmental practices will it receive praise or encouragement from ecological militants? More likely it will remain on the "enemies list" because of the twelfth. And the thousands of progressives working hard as ecological consultants to create meaningful change will be sneered at by militants for 'selling out'.

The left has been scratching its collective head for half a decade now trying to understand how the lunatic fringe on the right managed to maneuver itself into power. One reason is that while the neo-cons may be clones of the Taliban in their ideology, they don't demand Taliban-like ideological purity in their alliances.

I can sympathize with the discouragement of the tragedy-addicts. And I can even--with some effort--respect the ideological purity of those who don't want to soil their dainty hands by contact with the mundane institutions of our ordinary corrupt world. What I object to is the fierce effort both types of addicts make to recruit others to their habits.

Especially when the far right is in power. Those guys aren't into purity.

And they're not into tragedy.

Copyright 2006 © HuffingtonPost.com, LLC

Media Advisory

Rumsfeld Challenged
Media mishandle Rumsfeld-McGovern exchange

5/10/06

It is not often that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld finds himself aggressively questioned about the Iraq War. When that happened at a May 4 event, many in the media seemed not to know what to make of it.

During an appearance at the Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Rumsfeld was confronted by several anti-war protesters, and was asked pointed questions from the audience by Ray McGovern, a retired CIA analyst. McGovern specifically queried Rumsfeld about his previous claims about the locations of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as his assertion that there was "bulletproof" evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

To some, the questions raised by McGovern were tantamount to heckling—as one May 4 Associated Press headline put it, "Rumsfeld Heckled by Anti-War Protesters During Atlanta Speech." That was echoed by CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien, who said (5/5/06) that Rumsfeld "was heckled by opponents of the war in Iraq. Among them, was Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, who asked him about previous claims weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq." CNN's Wolf Blitzer framed it all as a distraction from more serious issues (5/4/06): "Aside from the anti-Rumsfeld ranting, the defense secretary did get a chance to talk some substance on the war on terror." Though some antiwar protestors in the audience did interrupt Rumsfeld's speech with shouts and banners, McGovern asked his questions after being called on during the designated question-and-answer period, so it's hard to know why that might be called "heckling" or "ranting."

Other outlets were hard-pressed to find much news value at all in the exchange. The New York Times and USA Today (5/5/06), for example, ran tiny mentions of McGovern's questioning of Rumsfeld about his statements regarding the location of Iraq's WMDs and the country's ties to Al-Qaeda. Ironically, the Times made the incident the centerpiece of its May 7 editorial, apparently assuming that its readers were informed about the substance of the matter from other news sources. The Washington Post (5/5/06) ran an AP account of the Rumsfeld speech; the Los Angeles Times (5/5/06), to its credit, actually addressed what should have been the central issue—whether McGovern was right about Rumsfeld's exaggerations and inaccuracies.

The story seemed to be bigger on TV news—all three network newscasts ran stories about it on May 4—but some curious tendencies were evident. ABC World News Tonight played a long clip, but offered no context about who was right on the facts. On CBS, after anchor Bob Schieffer announced that Rumsfeld "ran head on into hecklers that included a former CIA analyst," reporter David Martin said that McGovern "waited his turn to ask a question and then went for Rumsfeld's throat."

Apart from the somewhat violent metaphor, Martin gave Rumsfeld a little help on the substance of the matter. After showing a clip of McGovern asking Rumsfeld to explain his claims of "bulletproof" links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, Martin offered as a response that insurgent leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi "is certainly in Iraq now." NBC Nightly News reporter Jim Miklaszewski, saying the "protests turned personal and ugly," also seemed eager to help Rumsfeld's case, summarizing that "Rumsfeld appeared to pretty much hold his own during today 's protest."

That is a curious assessment, given that the facts in dispute cut against Rumsfeld. McGovern asked why Rumsfeld had claimed he knew where the weapons of mass destruction were hidden in Iraq; despite Rumsfeld's denial, he did in fact say exactly that during an interview on ABC on March 30, 2003. Asked about the U.S. military's failure to find weapons of mass destruction, he responded: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." McGovern accurately quoted this statement during his questioning.

As to the question regarding Iraq's relationship with Al-Qaeda, Rumsfeld could only point to Zarqawi's presence in Iraq (Zarqawi has long been considered leader of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and is now apparently the head of Council of Holy Warriors). But Zarqawi's pre-war links to either Al-Qaeda or the Iraqi government are dubious (Washington Post, 2/13/03), and subsequent investigations have done little to bolster Rumsfeld's line. In fact, at times Rusmfeld has acknowledged as much; as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted (5/8/06), Rumsfeld once said of the linking of Iraq to Al-Qaeda (10/4/04), "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

Despite the fact that the facts support McGovern, CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre managed to muddy the water in a brief "fact check" segment on the network's American Morning show (5/5/06), saying of Rumsfeld's claims about the location of Iraq's weapons:

"What Rumsfeld is saying is that when he said, 'We know where they are,' what he was referring to were the sites where the weapons were believed to be based on the intelligence, not absolute knowledge of the intelligence. It is a fine point that Rumsfeld's making. Usually he's very precise in what he says, so that he can't be pinned down later. In this case, he wasn't precise, and it's coming back to haunt him."

In fact, Rumsfeld was precise in his original remarks—precisely wrong. Later that day, McIntyre claimed on Lou Dobbs Tonight that Rumsfeld is "usually very careful not to say anything that could come back to haunt him," which is only true in the sense that Rumsfeld's inaccurate pronouncements over the past several years have generally been glossed over by the mainstream press (See Extra!, 3-4/02; FAIR Action Alert, 9/20/02; Extra!Update,12/03).

CNN's McIntyre also raised—albeit inadvertently—a key issue when he remarked that McGovern "is learning something we've all learned in questioning Rumsfeld, that when you question him about something he said, you better have the quote accurate, and he does." It goes without saying that reporters should be accurate in their questioning. A more pertinent question, though, is why so few reporters have put these questions to Rumsfeld. It speaks volumes about the state of the press corps that a question from the audience at an event can expose Rumsfeld's deceptions in a way that regular press conferences with reporters have not.


*****
To read a transcript of the McGovern-Rusmfeld exchange, go to:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/05/1432203

Here's what Krebs had to say about the newly-revealed NSA program that aims to track "every call ever made": "If you're looking for a needle, making the haystack bigger is counterintuitive. It just doesn't make sense."

"Certain people are more suspicious than others," he adds. They make frequent trips back-and-forth to Afghanistan, for instance. "So you start with them. And you work two steps out. If none of those people are connected, you don't have a cell. Because if one was there, you'd find some clustering. You don't have to collect all the data in the world to do that."

The right thing to do is to look for the best haystack, not the biggest haystack. We knew exactly which haystack to look at in the year 2000 [before the 9/11 attacks]. We just didn't do it...

The worst part -- the thing that's most disappointing to me -- is that this is not the right way to do this. It's a waste of time, a waste of resources. And it lets the real terrorists run free.

UPDATE 2:30 PM: Shane Harris broke this story, in broad strokes, back in March, Patrick reminds us. Harris also offers a possible explanation for some of the NSA program's massive size:

To find meaningful patterns in transactional data, analysts need a lot of it. They must set baselines about what constitutes "normal" behavior versus "suspicious" activity. Administration officials have said that the NSA doesn't intercept the contents of a communication unless officials have a "reasonable" basis to conclude that at least one party is linked to a terrorist organization.

To make any reasonable determination like that, the agency needs hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of call records, preferably as soon as they are created, said a senior person in the defense industry who is familiar with the NSA program and is an expert in the analytical tools used to find patterns and connections. Asked if this means that the NSA program is much broader and less targeted than administration officials have described, the expert replied, "I think that's correct."

Harris also fingers a likely program set of research efforts to help the NSA better comb through all this data: "Novel Intelligence from Massive Data," or NIMD. Its goal is to develop "techniques and tools that assist analysts not only in dealing with massive data, but also in interactively making explicit - and modifying and updating - their current analytic (cognitive) state, which includes not only their hypotheses, but also their knowledge, interests, and biases."

You'll be shocked to hear that NIMD's website has been taken offline. But you can find Goggle caches about the program here, here, here, and here.

UPDATE 5:19 PM: "To me, it's pretty clear that the people working on this program aren't as smart as they think they are," says former Air Force counter-terrorist specialist John Robb. "Some top level thinking indicates that this will quickly become a rat hole for federal funds (due to wasted effort) and a major source of infringement of personal freedom." John gives a bunch of reasons why. Here's just one:

It will generate oodles of false positives. Al Qaeda is now in a phase where most domestic attacks will be generated by people not currently connected to the movement (like we saw in the London bombings). This means that in many respects they will look like you and me until they act. The large volume of false positives generated will not be hugely inefficient, it will be a major infringement on US liberties. For example, a false positive will likely get you automatically added to a no-fly list, your boss may be visited (which will cause you to lose your job), etc.

UPDATE 6:23 PM: And now, the rebuttal. I just got off the phone with a source who has extensive experience in these matters. And he disagrees, strongly, with Krebs and Robb.

Really, the source said, there are two approaches to whittling down massive amounts of information: limiting what you search from the beginning -- or taking absolutely everything in, and sifting through it afterwards. In his experience, the source said, the approach of using "brute force... not optimally, not smartly" on the front end, and "cleaning [the data] up later" worked the best. Often times, other people don't know what you're searching for (or they don't have the same super-slick data-mining algorithms you've got). Better just to get it all.

In everything from speech analysis to sensor fusion, he argued, when you've got a weak signal masked by a lot of noise, "more data seems to be the answer... More data is what's going to allow you to get to ground truth."

Of course, there's a price to pay with this approach: a ton of false alarms. Several stages of filtering should fix that, he argued. Besides, "it's not like you call the FBI every time you get a hit."

Think of it as the Google approach. Wouldn't you rather have everything available on the search engine, and then do queries yourself?

May 11, 2006 01:35 PM 

©2006 Military Advantage

Editorial/Opinion

NSA has your phone records; 'trust us' isn't good enough

Posted 5/11/2006 10:55 PM ET

The government is secretly collecting the phone records of millions of Americans.

Stop and think for a moment about the meaning of that simple, startling fact, exposed Thursday in a remarkable report by USA TODAY's Leslie Cauley.

In the narrowest interpretation, of course, it is benign. Possibly even helpful. It means that the National Security Agency (NSA) — the Pentagon-run spy agency that monitors communications — is using a new tool to hunt terrorists: Monitor phone traffic to identify threats and stop them.

This is all it means, President Bush told the public Thursday in a brief appearance aimed at quelling the instant outrage provoked by the story. He assured Americans that their civil liberties were being "fiercely protected" and that the government was "not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans."

In other words, never mind appearances. Trust us.

Well, that is not all it means. Nor can the president's promise to protect privacy be reliably kept.

The fact that the government is trying to track (but not wiretap) every call you make and every call you receive — at home or on your cellphone is, to say the least, disturbing.

It means that your phone company (if you are a customer of AT&T, BellSouth or Verizon) tossed your privacy to the wind and collaborated with this extraordinary intrusion, and that it did so secretly and without following any court order.

That is, unless you're lucky enough to be served by Qwest, the one major phone company that had the integrity to resist government pressure.

It means that unless public opposition changes the government's course, this database will be compiled, updated and expanded into the indeterminate future, through countless administrations with who-knows-what interests and motives.

Only the most naive and unsuspicious soul could trust that it will remain safe, secured and for the eyes only of those hunting terrorists.

One need look no further than past abuses of power to be uncomfortable about the future. Richard Nixon during Watergate. Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. J. Edgar Hoover during his long reign as FBI director.

Even assuming that the Bush administration's motives are pure, and that this program merely looks for patterns of calls that could reveal terror networks, it raises a number of troubling questions:

Is it legal? Bush insists it is, but that's questionable. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a court order to gather a person's current phone records. A 1934 law requires phone companies to protect customers' privacy. And the Fourth Amendment forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Is it useful? Taken as a whole, such a database is of dubious utility. U.S. intelligence-gathering agencies are already suffering from an abundance of raw information and a dearth of good intelligence. Looking for suspicious patterns among billions of phone numbers seems like the ultimate search for a needle in a haystack.

Is it foolproof? These types of databases invariably have errors. The federal terrorist "watch list," which is used to screen airline passengers, has ensnared a number of innocent travelers — among them Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and a 23-month-old toddler — whose names are similar to, or the same as, suspects on the list. Once you're mistakenly targeted, the error can be nearly impossible to fix and your life can be turned upside down.

Will it be abused? Maybe not at first. Over time, however, this vast quantity of data is a potentially irresistible tool for government officials who want to zero in on individual Americans.

At the very least, one can imagine this information being used by law enforcement agencies trying to trace people who have attracted their attention but about whom they don't have enough information to justify a court order. Or to look for whistle-blowers who have leaked sensitive information to reporters.

Consider what happened in the 1960s and '70s, the last time federal law enforcement and national security agencies launched mass snooping expeditions against U.S. citizens. The FBI, which became a clearinghouse for the data, sent them to the CIA, the Justice Department and the IRS, where some of the data were used in tax probes.

"Information that should not have been gathered in the first place has gone beyond the initial agency to numerous other agencies and officials, thus compounding the original intrusion," concluded a committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, which investigated and reported on the abuses in 1976. The amount of information was "so voluminous," it was difficult "to separate useful data from worthless detail."

NSA's technological capabilities, the Church Committee wrote, are a "sensitive national asset" valuable to the national defense. Even so, it warned, "if not properly controlled ... this same technological capability could be turned against the American people, at great cost to liberty."

The panel's conclusions about NSA are as valid today as they were then.

The phone record program serves as a powerful reminder of how, in a digital age, records can be compiled and analyzed in ways you are unaware of.

And combined with a separate NSA program (revealed in December by The New York Times) to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls from the USA, it raises the question of what other secret and constitutionally suspect programs the Bush administration might still be shielding.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA for six years and is now Bush's nominee to be CIA director, is a master of evasion. Speaking in January about the international eavesdropping, he said the program is not a widely cast "drift net" but is narrowly "focused" and "targeted."

Perhaps. But, at the time, he was fully aware of a program that is many of the things the other is not. A 2006 version of the Church Committee is needed to investigate the anti-terror programs created in the scary aftermath of 9/11, and the Senate should hold up Hayden's nomination until all its questions are answered.

Creating a huge, secret database of Americans' phone records does far more than threaten terrorists. It is a deeply troubling act that undermines U.S. freedoms and threatens us all.

The White House declined to provide an opposing view to this editorial.

Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Posted on 5/11/2006 10:24:07 AM

EUREKA SPRINGS, Ark. (AP) - A former diplomat from Arkansas, who said she resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service in part as a protest against the war in Iraq, says many people in the government believe the war is crazy, but are afraid to speak out.

"In order to speak out, you have to resign from the government," Ann Wright said.

Wright, who grew up in Bentonville, graduated from the University of Arkansas and joined the Army to get out of Arkansas - later joining the Foreign Service - returned to her home state Wednesday to speak at an anti-war gathering sponsored by Veterans for Peace.

Also speaking at the meeting was Cindy Sheehan of Vacaville, Calif., the "peace mom" who last summer led protests outside President Bush's Texas ranch. Sheehan's son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, 24, was killed in Iraq in April 2004.

Wright was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, when she resigned from the State Department in March 2003.

She said many of her peers in the government thought the war was "the craziest thing" but no one wanted to speak against the administration's decision to start it. Wright said it was a bad idea to start the war without the support of the United Nations.

Sheehan said she's often "preaching to the choir" when she speaks against the war, but she urges everyone in that choir to start singing.

"When we have demonstrations, millions of people should be out on the streets demanding to bring our troops back," she said.

Sheehan, who described her son as a "sweet, gentle young man," said her short-term goal is to get the government to pull the troops out of Iraq.

She said she started speaking out to put a human face on the war, a war she said was unnecessarily started to provide profits for corporate colonialism. But the number of opponents to the war is growing, Sheehan said, and "I think we are prevailing and (American troops will) be home soon."

Outside the municipal auditorium where the event was held, Julie Smithwick, 43, of Green Forest held a sign saying "Cindy ... you do not speak for me. I support our troops."

Smithwick, who said her son is in the Marines and will be heading to Iraq in the fall, said she does not like hearing Sheehan say she is speaking out for the American people. Smithwick said she can speak for herself.

"I can't see any serviceman who wants the war, but it's their job," she said. "Sometimes we have to get dirty."

©2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

© 2006 CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING, INC.

One Final GOP Rip-Off Before November

By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real
Posted on May 12, 2006, Printed on May 12, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/36150/

Remember the rampant looting that followed the fall of Saddam? You may have thought that was a pretty brazen display of thievery.

Forget about it. Those Iraqis were pikers compared to the Republican-engineered looting about to begin right here at home. Context being everything, let me set the stage.

The GOP can read the polls. They know the jig is up. Americans are onto them, and we fully intend to throw them out of power beginning with this November's midterm elections.

Which is why the rush is on to top off their booty accounts and those of their well-heeled friends. It's every man, woman and contractor for him or herself now -- and never mind appearances. Just start stuffing the cash into old duffel bags until they're dragged, kicking and screaming, away from the till.

Which brings me to the measure passed by the Republican Senate this week. When you're looking for loose cash these days, where better to look than Iraq and Afghanistan? And this week they went straight for it. The Senate was considering a supplemental bill to fund reconstruction in the countries we deconstructed during Bush's first term in office. The sum the White House requested: a lip-smacking $109 billion.

You might remember that soon after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, Halliburton and other administration-connected contractors were caught stealing hundreds of millions. ("Stealing": such an ugly word. They prefer "billing disputes" and "cost overruns.")

The flap over those early capers resulted in the appointment of Stuart Bowen as special inspector for Iraq reconstruction. Bowen was given a $24 million annual budget and a staff of 55 junkyard dog auditors.

Apparently, the White House failed to conduct its usual background checks of Mr. Bowen. Because, if they had, he would have never been hired. Unlike the standard issue administration yes-men, Bowen turned out to be the real deal. He and his small auditors thought they were actually supposed to catch cheats. And, sure enough, they began catching contractors forcing them to put the cookies back in the jar.

Which explains this week's White House hat trick. The administration had GOP senators on the appropriation committee to make a tiny change in wording to the new $109 billion authorization. It was a tiny change and, I am sure, they hoped it would go unnoticed.

Under prior authorizations, Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction funds were described as "relief and reconstruction" funds. Under the measure passed by the Senate this week, the newly authorized funds would fall under the description "foreign operation" funds.

Here's the rub: Under law, relief and reconstruction funds must be audited by Stuart Bowen's bean counters. But Bowen has no authority over appropriations designated as foreign operations funds. Those funds are audited by the State Department inspector general.

Now, remember … Bowen's annual budget is $24 million, and he has 55 seasoned auditors. (Auditors who have gotten to know the perps and their tricks very, very well.)

The State Department inspector general has a budget more like the Mayberry Police Department: $1.3 million and just 4 auditors.

"This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to shut down the only effective oversight of this massive reconstruction program, which has been plagued by fraud and mismanagement." (Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt.)

So with the Republican majority's days likely to end in six months, and the inevitable end of the U.S. occupation in Iraq sure to follow soon thereafter, it was time for one final all-out, all-you-can-steal, grab it-and-dash romp through the Federal Treasury.

Oh, and don't bother complaining or denouncing the "Republican culture of corruption," because they know you know. They've been caught redhanded so many times now, we react to new allegations the way we react when we hear that Michael Jackson or a priest has molested another kid. So what else is new?

These guys are so past being ashamed by their behavior. They know what they are. They know we know what they are. And they're OK with that -- I mean, really OK. After six years at sucking at the federal tit, they're laughing all the way to the (offshore) bank. They may lose power for a while, but the money they stole will assure that they will, at least, experience a (very) soft landing.

More grapes

Of course, not every GOP suppoter can be a defense contractor. Some are in other businesses, like oil and finance. But they too have been taken care of, thanks to the Bush tax cuts on income, dividends and capital gains.

But like war profiteering, fat tax cuts were threatened. They were set to next year, just as Democrats might win back the majority. Holy emergency Bat-Bush!

Something had to be done and done fast. So the GOP majority passed bills this week extending those tax cuts, despite the exploding national debt created by the first round of cuts.

And, just as it was with the first round of Bush tax cuts, the extension benefits the wealthy far, far, far more than it benefits ordinary working families. Someone making a million bucks a year will get a $42,000 tax break. Someone making $25,000 a year will get a $10 tax break. If you make under $50,000 a year, you'll get around $50.

Caution: Your tax dollars at work

So I guess the moral here is that, between now and November, do not get between a GOP member of Congress -- or one of their big business supporters -- and any lose federal money. The final harvest is in full swing now, and you will get trampled.

What we will witness over the next few months will be one final, unembarassed, undisguised squeezing of the American taxpayer.

"Final" might be too optimistic. Because they've done it before, been thrown out, and returned to do it to us again. So let me qualify that. One final squeezing -- until the next time the GOP and its supporters can snooker enough Americans to believe in their phony "supply-side" Ponzi scheme.

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer.

© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/36150/

Rolling Over for Bush

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet
Posted on May 11, 2006, Printed on May 12, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/36140/

As I occasionally survey the pack of sycophantic shih tzus in the Washington press corps, wriggling on their bellies to kiss the feet of those in power, I feel plumb discouraged about the future of journalism.

It's like a cross between Versailles under Louis XIV and high school: obsequious courtiers flattering their way to favor, plus the silly cliques of the "in crowd" and "out crowd." On the other hand, I am greatly cheered by the young journalists in the blogosphere who have now whelped a perfect litter of books worth paying attention to.

For my marbles and chalk, the pick is David Sirota's Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government -- and How We Take It Back. Sirota is a new-generation populist who instinctively understands that the only real questions are "Who's getting screwed" and "Who's doing the screwing?"

The extent to which corporate power has taken over the country and is running the table cannot be exaggerated and must not be ignored. Sirota has not only collected much new and useful information, he has put it into a package that provides handy weapons to fight back. Si, se puede.

Eric Boehlert, who writes for the online magazine Salon, has taken on the MSM (mainstream media) and dipped it for ticks in his book, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush.

He recounts some breathtaking journalistic malfeasance -- ignoring the Downing Street memos, the Valerie Plame case and many others. As usual, sins of omission dominate. The Washington press corps (which I think should be separated from "normal" parts of the press) is breathtakingly craven. In the face of intimidation and the lure of official approval, it has shown neither courage nor enterprise. I don't know how to account for this pitiable performance. One hears terrifying tales of when the press corps "turns," when it rips and attacks like sharks in a "feeding frenzy." Darn, not a shark in sight. The president's approval ratings are at 31 percent, and not a single shih tzu will yap at him.

Sometimes misunderstandings between bloggers and the MSM are the result of simple ignorance. For example, there was the recent volley of disapproval from bloggers about the MSM's failure to pay attention to comedian Stephen Colbert's brilliant riff at the White House Correspondents Dinner.

They weren't ignoring Colbert -- as I understand it, Colbert was the final speaker, and no paper can get much in after 10 p.m. on Saturday night. Stories have to be written, edited and printed, the presses roll and then the trucks roll. It's OLD media, kids -- we do not just punch a button at our shops.

It seems to me both MSM and the blogosphere could benefit from reading the new biography of Izzy Stone by Myra MacPherson, out in September. Because Izzy was pretty much the perfect journalist, we can all learn from All Governments Lie: The Life and Times of Rebel Journalist I.F. Stone.

What a pleasure! What a joy to read about the old dog on the hunt. Surprising, too. While Stone famously broke story after story by actually reading government documents instead of taking what the press was spoon-fed, MacPherson reminds us he was also a shoe- leather reporter, who went out to interviews, press conferences and the daily bash, where he occasionally harassed spokesmen.

Today, the bloggers seem to me to be breaking more toward opinion than journalism, which I think is a shame.

A noble exception is Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo, which is completely on top of its chosen topics. Of course, Stone practiced opinion journalism, as do I, but with him the hard reporting always came first.

I have no objections to anyone breaking into the guild of journalism without the credentials of journalism school or experience on a print daily (though I highly recommend especially the latter). I do object to those who jump from political hackery to flackery and expect respect. Truly, if you can't cover a five-car pile-up on Route 128, you should not be covering a presidential campaign.

The danger of the blogosphere is reading only those you agree with. While there are right-wing blogs that are entertaining freak shows, it's hard to find substantial journalism there. I hate to list bloggers I like because I'm bound to leave out so many, but here goes: Daily Kos, Eschaton, Altercation, Political Animal and Media Matters.

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/36140/

C.W. Nevius.blog

(It must be kind of a Cheney family saying. You'll remember her father came up with the same snappy one-liner when he and Sen. Patrick Leahy got into a tiff on the floor of the Senate chamber two years ago.)

Mary's logic in sticking with the Bush administration, which is attempting to make it impossible for her to have a married relationship, while attacking the Democratic party, which has consistently pushed for that right, is a little hard to follow. Better grab something because this might make you dizzy.

''John Kerry didn't 'out me,' nor did he offend or attack me by calling me a lesbian,'' Cheney begins. ''It wasn't a secret that I was gay, and I certainly wouldn't be offended by the truth.''

OK, so far, so good. That makes sense. Kerry and Edwards said she was a lesbian. She is. She isn't embarrassed by that and it isn't a secret. So why is it a big deal?

''What was offensive,'' Cheney continued, ''was that he was trying to use me and my sexual orientation for his own political gain.''

What? You're kidding! Quick, can we print a special edition? You mean that the fact that the vice president was attempting to pass a law that would restrict the rights of his own daughter might be fodder for a campaign discussion? Personally, I am dumbfounded.

It all smacks of the pseudo-controversy when Lynne Cheney, Mary's mother, pitched such a fit when Kerry and Edwards mentioned her daughter's lesbianism. Why was she so upset? Surely not that she was embarrassed by her daughter? She's said many times that she isn't. The only thing I can think was that the indignation was a very helpful emotion to play to the Republican base. How dare the Democrats accuse Dick Cheney's daughter of something that is true?

It almost sounds like . . . wait for it . . . politics.

And so does this book. Mary Cheney is trying to have it both ways. And she's not convincing either side.

Because running to the front of the parade doesn't make you a leader. It just makes you look like a typical Washington opportunist.

Posted By: C.W. Nevius (Email) | May 11 2006 at 05:03 AM

©2006 San Francisco Chronicle

Letters to the Editor for Thursday, May 11, 2006


Stars and Stripes

European and Mideast editions

(EDITOR’S NOTE: These are the letters that appeared in each edition of Stripes on this publication date. Click here to jump ahead to the Pacific edition letters)

Bush’s decisions disastrous

George W. Bush said, “I’m the decider, and I decide what is best.”

Bush’s decisions on political appointees, including Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Chertoff, Michael Brown and former CIA Director Porter Goss, have been undisputed disasters. Gen. Michael Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, may replace Goss, who quit without explanation. Hayden is a staunch defender of Bush’s illegal, warrantless domestic spying and a likely advocate for Bush’s decision to ignore more than 750 laws if they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.

These events coincide with defense contractor Halliburton/KBR’s $385 million award to build immigrant detention centers “or to support the rapid development of new programs” still undefined. Bush prefers to debate the language in which the national anthem is sung rather than Made in America concentration camps for those singing it.

Bush isn’t the only one expanding his power outside the executive branch. Rumsfeld’s “most ambitious plan yet” widens America’s pre-emption policy beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2002 Rumsfeld said the war against Iraq would be short. He told troops in Aviano, Italy, “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

Cakewalk, Dick Cheney told “Meet the Press.” The U.S. is entering Phase Two of Bush’s plan “to fight and win multiple simultaneous major theater wars” per its blueprint “Project for a New American Century.” Iraq, Iran and North Korea comprise “The Long War” the conservative CATO Institute informed CNNI about in 2003.

For this administration’s duration, troops will force at gunpoint Bush’s interpretation of democracy abroad while Americans struggle against a constitutional crisis stateside. A group of [three] West Point Academy graduates recently concluded, “The deceitful connivances of the current administration have resulted in a war catastrophic to our nation’s interests: politically, economically, militarily, and morally.” I agree.

Michele Winter
Würzburg, Germany

© 2006 Stars and Stripes.

The CQPolitics Forum: Why Has Bush’s Base Started to Erode?

By Bob Benenson   |   4:29 PM; May. 09, 2006

CQPolitics.com on Monday asked its Board of Advisers the following:

President Bush’s job approval ratings among self-described Republicans, while still fairly high, have nonetheless slumped considerably in recent months — a major factor in the career lows that the president has been setting. Even many self-described conservatives, whose rock-solid support clinched Bush’s re-election in 2004, tell pollsters that their faith in the administration is waning.

What issue or issues do you believe have had the most profound effect in eroding Republicans’ support for Bush? Can he recapture these voters in time for the November midterm elections? If not, will Republican turnout be seriously depressed (as Democratic turnout was in the pivotal 1994 elections), or will the fear of a Democratic takeover be enough to motivate even depressed Republican voters to go to the polls?

Today, seven professional political analysts — Susan A. MacManus, David P. Rebovich, Aubrey Jewett, Bruce E. Cain, Dotty Lynch, Lawrence Jacobs and Phil Duncan — provide their views on the question.

Susan A. MacManus: The high turnout-older conservative voter is potentially a big problem for the GOP in the midterms. They are particularly upset with the president’s inability to get his agenda through a GOP-controlled Congress. This is not leadership in their minds. Many feel that he has let the Democrats control the agenda and has been slow to react to their barbs.

It is not the GOP’s inaction on moral issues that distresses them most. It is inaction on illegal immigration (they WANT BORDER CONTROL), the lack of fiscal constraint and the failure to make progress in winning the War in Iraq. They strongly support the troops but increasingly feel that, as in Vietnam, the politicians are keeping the military from winning the war.

They are also disappointed in the charges of corruption against members of the president’s team. They expected better from a conservative president, especially one who ran on a faith-based platform.

Some even feel that if Democrats controlled one house, it would shake the GOP congressional leadership out of its lethargy, maybe even teach them a lesson or two.

The fear of a Democratic takeover is not nearly the turnout motivator in the midterms as it is in a presidential election year. (It’s kind of like mid-term exams!) Part of the problem is that a substantial portion of the voting public doesn’t see much difference in who controls Congress — they are disgusted with them all. But they will see a difference between Hillary Clinton and the Republican [presidential] nominee.

The Republicans in Congress desperately need to pass some popular laws that can be used by GOP candidates back home to appeal to the conservative base.

Passing laws that affect children and protect the family could be the quickest and best way to draw a sharp line between Democrats and the GOP. Get-tough laws addressing sexual predators and child molesters, porn on the Internet, protection of religious freedom (prayer, home schooling, celebration of religious holidays), stronger support for easing the adoption process, anti-eminent domain laws and protecting the right to fly and display the American flag on one’s own property are the kinds of issues that can be turned in to powerful television and direct mail ads that capture the Boomer and older conservative voter.

Security issues still matter as well, especially in competitive states like Florida.

Susan A. MacManus is Distinguished University Professor of Government and International Affairs at University of South Florida.

David P. Rebovich: Conservative Republicans are an unhappy bunch these days, and this does not bode well for the GOP’s prospects of holding onto its majorities in the House, certainly, and perhaps in the Senate.

While most conservatives do understand that some of their various social and economic interests would be undermined by a Democratic House or Senate, many also want President George W. Bush and Congress to demonstrate that they can deal with pressing and foreign domestic problems and are willing to act to advance more conservative causes.

The results of the most recent AP-Ipsos poll had to send chills up the spines of Republican incumbents and operatives. President Bush’s approval rating sunk to a new low of 33 percent. And a whopping 73 percent of Americans believe that the nation is headed in the wrong direction; 60 percent of self-defined conservatives agree, an enormous amount.

To make matters worse for the Republicans on the ballot this fall, 65 percent of conservatives also disapprove of the job the GOP-controlled Congress is doing.

Besides sharing most citizens’ concerns about the war in Iraq and the high cost of gasoline, conservatives are also upset about illegal immigration, record-setting budget deficits and inaction on an amendment banning gay marriage. As the party that controls the White House and both chambers of Congress, the Bush-led Republicans of course have a hard time explaining their lack of action in areas of special interest to conservatives and their poor performance overall.

Can the president and his party turn this around in order to avoid a dropoff in turnout among the base that some GOP consultants are already predicting? Well, one approach, reminiscent of Karl Rove’s tactics in 2004, is to try to scare conservatives into voting, citing the Democrats’ liberal views on issues like abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage, their refusal to make permanent the Bush tax cuts, and their presumably wishy-washy views on the war on terror.

Another is to warn that a Democratic House may well try to begin impeachment procedures against the president over the war in Iraq, and that a Democratic Senate will never approve any conservative-leaning nominees to the federal courts.

Then there is, of course, the possibility that the president and Congress can approve some generally popular legislation, perhaps on immigration reform and maybe even on energy independence.

If the poll numbers remain at the low levels reported in the AP-Ipsos survey, expect Republican House and Senate incumbents to rely on all three approaches. With Democrats making this fall’s elections a referendum on the president and his Republican colleagues in Congress, the party in power will have make a strong case even to those folks in its base that it deserves to keep that power.

David P. Rebovich, Ph.D., is the managing director of the Rider University Institute for New Jersey Politics in Lawrenceville, N.J.. He is a columnist for PoliticsNJ.com and New Jersey Lawyer, and a contributor to Campaigns and Elections magazine.

Aubrey Jewett: Several issues are hurting Bush among his Republican supporters: the Iraq War, lack of spending discipline and illegal immigration reform.

The Iraq War is the biggest drain for the president, as even GOP stalwarts are concerned about the mounting casualties, rising costs and lack of a clear exit strategy.

Some fiscal conservatives are concerned about the budget deficit: While happy with the president’s tax cuts, they are concerned about the lack of spending discipline (domestic spending has grown faster under Bush than under Clinton — which is a really, really scary thought for most Republicans!).

Illegal immigration is also a problem for President Bush, as a number of conservatives adamantly oppose a guest worker program and even more oppose anything that smacks of amnesty or potential citizenship.

Bush may be able to recapture some of these supporters before the midterm election. He needs to come up with and have Congress back a viable exit strategy for Iraq (even if the exit strategy is down the road). He needs to veto a spending bill (and he may soon) to show some symbolic and real action on the deficit. While Bush’s immigration stance will be difficult to reconcile with the conservative base, there are some other social conservative issues he can tout and run on that will help: Supreme Court nominees, gay marriage and religion in public life to name three.

Despite Bush’s best efforts, Republican turnout may still be slightly depressed in the congressional midterms. And more importantly, Democratic turnout may be higher and the swing vote may go much more toward Democratic candidates, as swings will not necessarily be swayed by Bush’s attempts to energize the base.

Republicans’ best hope for maintaining control of Congress overall is to localize each race to issues and candidates important to state and local voters, and pray that gerrymandering protects their marginal House candidates.

The Democrats’ best hope, of course, is to nationalize each race — making each a referendum on the war, on Bush’s leadership and on congressional ethics.

Aubrey Jewett is a political science professor at the University of Central Florida who specializes in American and Florida politics. He is a co-founder and board member of the Lou Frey Institute of Politics and Government at UCF, and served as a 2003-2004 American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow in Washington, D.C.

Bruce E. Cain: After six years in office, presidents inevitably disappoint some of the party faithful. This is President Bush’s fate at the moment. His prescription drug bill and expanding budgets have alienated fiscal conservatives. His failure to deliver on a gay marriage ban and the Harriet Miers nomination [to the Supreme Court] let down the social conservatives. And mistakes in Iraq have turned off some of the neo-con wing.

What can the beleaguered president and his political allies do about this? Remind voters that the choice is between imperfect and much worse, which means going after Democratic candidates aggressively. That is unlikely to excite or mobilize conservative voters to the degree that they were in 2004, but often political contests are wars of attrition rather than energizing campaigns.

Besides, congressional races are rarely won or lost on turnout primarily. Turnout differentials are not normally large enough to swing a seat from one party to another: The forces that mobilize/demobilize one side tend to mobilize/demobilize the other.

More important is the swing to Democrats among independents and weak partisans, who will likely focus on economic conditions, the war and specific candidate character issues.

Given that Democratic candidates, not the Republicans, will want to nationalize the House and Senate races, a dramatic policy intervention by the Bush administration to rally the conservative forces may not be welcomed — certainly not in the “blue” states and marginal districts. The best presents the administration can give Republican candidates are lower gas prices, an improved Iraq situation and a mistake free hurricane season.

Bruce Cain is the director of the University of California Washington Center and longtime director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at University of California, Berkeley.

Dotty Lynch: The Republican base started to crack around the time of the Dubai ports flap, when the Republican leadership publicly disagreed with the president. If the “fear of losing” tactic unifies the leadership, they may be able to entice the drifting Republican voters. But even stalwart Republicans are expressing a loss of confidence in the administration.

In 1994, not only was Democratic turnout down but Republicans sensed and seized an opportunity. The longer the Republicans churn, the more the Democratic activists will get motivated.

I think it will take more than fear for the Republicans to inspire their base. It will take a program and a demonstration of competent, effective leadership.

Dotty Lynch is a fellow at the Institute of Politics at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and a CBS News political consultant..

Lawrence Jacobs: The impact of 9/11 in recasting American politics in national security terms is fading. What is most striking about the 2006 election is that it appears to be returning to standard evaluations of the incumbents based on domestic and international conditions.

There are several developments that are working against the Republicans. Voters’ concerns are increasingly turning back to domestic conditions (economy, jobs, health care, and education) and away from a three-decade high for national security and war. The continual stream of bad news from Iraq has eroded the Republican advantage on national security and made it more difficult to convince many voters outside of strong partisans of the GOP’s of the connection between Iraq and fighting terrorism.

The basic conditions in the country pose an ominous challenge for Republicans — one that may be resistant to the GOP’s post-9/11 strategy of playing up their credibility on national security and fighting terrorism. A single-issue campaign will be quite challenging for Republicans to ride to victory.

On the other hand, the Republicans are building an impressive ground game through their grass-roots organizing. National polls make an assumption that Republican organizers do not — namely, that majority opinion in surveys is the same as electoral opinion. The reality is that Republican operatives have an unparallelled campaign organization, which may offset the unfavorable domestic and international conditions that favor Democratic challengers.

The key fact to remember is that elections are a form of comparative shopping. Generic horserace questions and surveys aimed at evaluating one party neglect the comparative assessments that voters make. The combination of the GOP’s impressive ground game, ample funds and a stable of quality candidates may well surprise prognosticators who envision the Democrats gaining control of at least one congressional chamber.

Lawrence Jacobs is Mondale Chair at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute and Department of Political Science.

Phil Duncan: Conservative Republicans ought to be — and signs are growing that many are — appalled at the Bush’s administration’s money-management madness, which threatens to run the next generation into an impossibly deep deficit ditch. If a Democratic president were practicing such fiscal voodoo, GOP hardliners would be howling for his head on a stake.

Can Democrats capitalize on what ought to be diminished Republican turnout in November? The sounds that you hear now may indeed be the first footsteps of a fall voter stampede, one that will make “W” stand for “waddle,” as in how a (lame) duck walks.

But if, by Columbus Day, the GOP has somehow gotten the Iraq arrow to turn up, and cajoled Big Oil to push the pump-price down, the Republican faithful may rally to the flag one more time.

Phil Duncan, a former CQ politics editor, is founder of Civicatalyst Communications, which promotes citizen participation, civic education and economic prosperity. His company also works with the non-partisan Center on Congress at Indiana University headed by Democratic former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton . Duncan is a board member of the congressionally chartered, non-profit National Conference on Citizenship.

 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Congressional Quarterly Inc.

Wanted: One courageous Senator

by

Gerald Plessner

May 10, 2006 - One courageous Republican senator needs to step forward. One senator must bring together two or three colleagues and call on the president. In strict privacy, with only the senators, the president and vice president in the room, the senators should ask the president and vice president to resign.

America cannot go on like this for two and a half more years. If Republicans want any chance of retaining control of either house of Congress, or both, the ruling party must act now to give the United States and the world a sense that someone is in charge in Washington, that something dumb or dangerous will not happen to the world.

The idea of a double resignation is unique and complex, but given the lack of public confidence in the vice president --- his poll approval ratings are in the teens --- a double resignation must be proposed. The Speaker of the House, who by Constitutional provision is next in line, should agree to serve as an interim chief executive until a national election is held.

As difficult and disruptive that the idea might seem, Republicans must consider that, should the Democrats gain control of Congress this fall, it might be much more destructive during two years of Congressional investigations and hearings, and a potential impeachment and trial.

This may be a wild idea, but we must look at the harsh realities. We must realize that it is the only rational solution to our problems. And there are many:

The president's confidence rating in every poll is in the 30-35 percent range and falling. Sixty percent of conservatives want the Democrats to regain control of Congress, according to a May 5 Associated Press poll. The most common adjective used to describe the president is "incompetent".

The president's effort to revitalize his administration shows an embarrassing lack of creativity.

The president's ability to manage the White House seems severely limited.

His loyalty to friends who have served America poorly keeps people like Donald Rumsfeld in