John Kerry Speaks Out Against Bush Doctrine & Iraq Plans

A Right and Responsibility to Speak Out - On 35th Anniversary of Senate Testimony, Kerry Says History Repeating Itself

John Kerry seems to have found a backbone and temporarily cut his umbilical cord attachment to Ted Kennedy. I am not a fan of Kerry because I have had dealings with him and his office staff in the past. However, I watched Kerry deliver this speech and found myself amazed at his courage to speak on this issue. So, when something is right, we have to acknowledge it regardless of which jerk is saying it.

Kerry spoke at Boston's historic Faneuil Hall about patriotism and dissent in our current status of combat in Iraq and the assault on free speech in America today. I have edited out the superfluous stuff and focused in on the meat of the speech. The full text is available at the link above.

I know that some active duty service members, some veterans, and certainly some politicians scorned those of us who spoke out, suggesting our actions failed to "support the troops"-which to them meant continuing to support the war, or at least keeping our mouths shut. Indeed, some of those critics said the same thing just two years ago during the presidential campaign.

Being a veteran that has spoken out against this invasion, the doctrine and ideology that is the impetus for it, and the complete and utter disregard of our Constitution in the process, I have lost friends and colleague over this matter. Many of my veteran friends have accused me of being disloyal to the nation, unsupportive of the troops (which just isn't the case) and an obstructionist that doesn't understand the terrorist threat coming out of Iraq (which did not exist before the invasion and occupation).

I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country's ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that's certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place. Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971.

By then, it was clear to me that hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen-disproportionately poor and minority Americans-were being sent into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion privately abandoned by the very men in Washington who kept sending them there. All the horrors of a jungle war against an invisible enemy indistinguishable from the people we were supposed to be protecting-all the questions associated with quietly sanctioned violence against entire villages and regions-all the confusion and frustration that came from defending a corrupt regime in Saigon that depended on Americans to do too much of the fighting-all that cried out for dissent, demanded truth, and could not be denied by easy slogans like "peace with honor"-or by the politics of fear and smear. It was time for the truth, and time for it all to end, and my only regret in joining the anti-war movement was that it took so long to succeed-for the truth to prevail, and for America to regain confidence in our own deepest values.

In truth, there were analysts and advisors that informed JFK and LBJ that our involvement in Vietnam was never going to be effective. The first US miltary death in Vietnam occurred in 1946... an Army Lieutenant Colonel advisor to the French and South Vietnamese representative government. LBJ was advised by civilian analysts to withdraw before the Tet Offensive, but he chose to listen to McNamara and the entrenched generals following Gen, Westmoreland's misleading assessments and field reports.

Then, and even now, there were many alarmed by dissent-many who thought that staying the course would eventually produce victory-or that admitting the mistake and ending it would embolden our enemies around the world. History disproved them before another decade was gone: Fourteen years elapsed between the first major American commitment of helicopters and pilots to Vietnam and the fall of Saigon. Fourteen years later, the Berlin Wall fell, and with it the Communist threat. You cannot tell me that withdrawing from Vietnam earlier would have changed that outcome.

This is exactly the current approach employed by the Bush gang... stay the course and we will eventually win. I have written about learning to fail quickly so that a failed strategy can be reversed and a new winning strategy can be implemented. This cannot happen when the key decision-makers are entrenched in their ideology, do not have a simultaneous focus on the process and the outcome, and do not care to listen to any voice that does not affirm their pre-determined agendas.

The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Vietnam, and some of us were wrong. The lesson is that true patriots must defend the right of dissent, and hear the voices of dissenters, especially now, when our leaders have committed us to a pre-emptive "war of choice" that does not involve the defense of our people or our territory against aggressors. The patriotic obligation to speak out becomes even more urgent when politicians refuse to debate their policies or disclose the facts. And even more urgent when they seek, perversely, to use their own military blunders to deflect opposition and answer their own failures with more of the same. Presidents and politicians may worry about losing face, or votes, or legacy; it is time to think about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives.

I find I agree with Kerry here. It is not about being right or wrong, it is about doing what is right for our troops, Iraq, the region and for our nation. It is about sticking to our first principles and our ideals in a realistic and productive manner.

This is not the first time in American history when patriotism has been distorted to deflect criticism and mislead the nation.

In the infancy of the Republic, in 1798, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts to smear Thomas Jefferson and accuse him of treason. Newspapers were shut down, and their editors arrested, including Benjamin Franklin's grandson. No wonder Thomas Jefferson himself said: "Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism."

In the Mexican War, a young Congressman named Abraham Lincoln was driven from public life for raising doubts about official claims. And in World War I, America's values were degraded, not defended, when dissenters were jailed and the teaching of German was banned in public schools in some states. At that time it was apparently sounding German, not looking French, that got you in trouble. And it was panic and prejudice, not true patriotism, that brought the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II-a measure upheld by Supreme Court Justices who did not uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution. We are stronger today because no less a rock-ribbed conservative than Robert Taft - "Mr. Republican" himself - stood up and said at the height of the second World War that, "the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."

Even during the Cold War-an undeclared war, and often more a war of nerves and diplomacy than of arms-even the mildest dissenters from official policy were sometimes silenced, blacklisted, or arrested, especially during the McCarthy era of the early 1950s. Indeed, it was only when Joseph McCarthy went through the gates of delirium and began accusing distinguished U.S. diplomats and military leaders of treason that the two parties in Washington and the news media realized the common stake they had in the right to dissent. They stood up to a bully and brought down McCarthyism's ugly and contrived appeals to a phony form of 100% Americanism.

There is a long history of our government and our elected officials misleading us to put forth an agenda that is not in keeping with our laws, our Constitution and our first principles.

Dissenters are not always right, but it is always a warning sign when they are accused of unpatriotic sentiments by politicians seeking a safe harbor from debate, from accountability, or from the simple truth.

Truth is the American bottom line. Truth above all is fundamental to who we are. It is no accident that among the first words of the first declaration of our national existence it is proclaimed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident…".

Amen, Borther Kerry! Any time there is entrenchment and a circling of the wagons, we should be aware that this pattern is used to keep us from speaking out and seeking the truth of matters. The pattern that we speak about is clearly outlined in Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt.

America has always embraced the best traditions of civilized conduct toward combatants and non-combatants in war. But today our leaders hold themselves above the law-in the way they not only treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but assert unchecked power to spy on American citizens.

America has always rejected war as an instrument of raw power or naked self-interest. We fought when we had to in order to repel grave threats or advance freedom and self-determination in concert with like-minded people everywhere. But our current leadership, for all its rhetoric of freedom and democracy, behaves as though might does make right, enabling us to discard the alliances and institutions that served us so well in the past as nothing more now than impediments to the exercise of unilateral power.

America has always been stronger when we have not only proclaimed free speech, but listened to it. Yes, in every war, there have been those who demand suppression and silencing. And although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country.

Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America's leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion of the nation's direction, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate.

The Bush gang and the Republican leadership has not only dismissed dissent, but actively worked to suppress the press, free inquiry, and control the information flow to the benefit of their own agenda and not the best interests of our nation. Proof of that claim is in the Plame case and the fact that the criminals responsible for that action still occupy high office instead of a jail cell.

In recent weeks, a number of retired high-ranking military leaders, several of whom played key combat or planning roles in Afghanistan and Iraq, have come forward publicly to call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And across the administration, from the president on down, we've heard these calls dismissed or even attacked as acts of disloyalty, or as threats to civilian control of the armed forces. We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That is cheap and it is shameful. And once again we have seen personal attacks on the character of those who speak out. How dare those who never wore the uniform in battle attack those who wore it all their lives-and who, retired or not, did not resign their citizenship in order to serve their country.

The former top operating officer at the Pentagon, a Marine Lieutenant General, said "the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results." It is hard for a career military officer to speak those words. But at a time when the administration cannot let go of the myths and outright lies it broadcast in the rush to war in Iraq, those who know better must speak out.

It is not only retired generals that are debating the issues of leadership, competence, and the plan for Iraq, the list now includes numerous war veterans and frontline officers: Young Officers Join the Debate Over Rumsfeld. We are risking the civilian control over the military if the Bush gang (especially Rumsfeld) continues down this path. Many of the officers and NCOs in the military are beginning to remind themselves that they took an oath to defend the Constitution agains all enemies, foreign or domestic. When the civilian leadership breaches the trust given to them by not following the Constitution in good faith, members of the military leadership may see grounds for their forced removal. We have been rather lucky in terms of our military over the last 200 or so years. Our only crisis involving military action against our own government came during the Civil War. But our foundational documents--the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, The Federalist Papers, etc.--lay down principles for our citizens to take action to forcibly restructure our government if necessary. We need a principled civilian leadership to maintain civilian control over the military. We teach our officers and our NCOs about duty, honor and principles... God help us if they rely upon that instruction to force our government to live by the same code of honor, duty and principle.

At a time when mistake after mistake is being compounded by the very civilian leadership in the Pentagon that ignored expert military advice in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, those who understand the price being paid for each mistake by our troops, our country, and Iraq itself must be heard.

Once again we are imprisoned in a failed policy. And once again we are being told that admitting mistakes, not the mistakes themselves, will provide our enemies with an intolerable propaganda victory. Once again we are being told that we have no choice but to stay the course of a failed policy. At a time like this, those who seek to reclaim America's true character and strength must be respected.

The true defeatists today are not those who call for recognizing the facts on the ground in Iraq. The true defeatists are those who believe America is so weak that it must sacrifice its principles to the pursuit of illusory power.

The true pessimists today are not those who know that America can handle the truth about the Administration's boastful claim of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. The true pessimists are those who cannot accept that America's power and prestige depend on our credibility at home and around the world. The true pessimists are those who do not understand that fidelity to our principles is as critical to national security as our military power itself.

And the most dangerous defeatists, the most dispiriting pessimists, are those who invoke September 11th to argue that our traditional values are a luxury we can no longer afford.

Proof that the Bush administration's policies and practices have all but completely failed us revealed in New Plans Foresee Fighting Terrorism Beyond War Zones, Inspectors Find More Torture at Iraqi Jails: Top General's Pledge To Protect Prisoners 'Not Being Followed', Anointed, Not Appointed , Dubious Choices , CIA Officer Is Fired for Media Leaks: The Post Was Among Outlets That Gained Classified Data, Sisyphus Redux, , Archives Kept a Secrecy Secret: Agencies Removed Declassified Papers From Public Access, Iran's Defiance Narrows U.S. Options for Response, etc.

Let's call it the Bush-Cheney Doctrine.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, alliances and international institutions are now disposable-and international institutions are dispensable or even despicable.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, we cannot foreswear the fool's gold of information secured by torturing prisoners or creating a shadow justice system with no rules and no transparency.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, unwarranted secrecy and illegal spying are now absolute imperatives of our national security.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, those who question the abuse of power question America itself.

According to the Bush-Cheney doctrine, an Administration should be willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the Iraq war, but unwilling to spend a few billion dollars to secure the American ports through which nuclear materials could make their way to terrorist cells.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, executive powers trump the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, smearing administration critics is not only permissible, but necessary-and revealing the identity of a CIA agent is an acceptable means to hide the truth.

In plain English, the Bush-Cheney Doctrine is a complete and utter failure.

The raw justification for abandoning so many American traditions exposes the real danger of the Bush-Cheney Doctrine. We all understand we are in a long struggle against jihadist extremism. It does represent a threat to our vital security interests and our values. Even the Bush-Cheney Administration acknowledges this is preeminently an ideological war, but that's why the Bush-Cheney Doctrine is so ill-equipped to fight and win it.

Our enemies argue that all our claims about advancing universal principles of human rights and mutual respect disguise a raw demand for American dominance. They gain every time we tolerate or cover up abuses of human rights in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or among sectarian militias in Iraq, and especially when we defiantly disdain the rules of international law.

Our enemies argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq reflect an obsession with oil supplies and commercial opportunities. They gain when our president and vice president, both former oil company executives, continue to pursue an oil-based energy strategy, and provide vast concessions in Iraq to their corporate friends.

And so there's the crowning irony: the Bush-Cheney Doctrine holds that many of our great traditions cannot be maintained; yet the Bush-Cheney policies, by abandoning those traditions, give Osama bin Laden and his associates exactly what they want and need to reinforce their hate-filled ideology of Islamic solidarity against the western world.

It's not just our traditions, but our principles, our laws and our Constitution.

I understand fully that Iraq is not Vietnam, and the war on terrorism is not the Cold War. But in one very crucial respect, we are in the same place now as we were thirty five years ago. When I testified in 1971, I spoke out not just against the war itself, but the blindness and cynicism of political leaders who were sending brave young Americans to be killed or maimed for a mission the leaders themselves no longer believed in.

The War in Vietnam and the War in Iraq are now converging in too many tragic respects.

As in Vietnam, we engaged militarily in Iraq based on official deception.

As in Vietnam, we went into Iraq ostensibly to fight a larger global war under the misperception that the particular theater was just a sideshow, but we soon learned that the particular aspects of the place where we fought mattered more than anything else.

And as in Vietnam, we have stayed and fought and died even though it is time for us to go.

We are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war.

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can't bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq's leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires.

As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences.

While Iraq is not Vietnam, the similarities are striking and growing. Perhaps we should not be so reluctant to draw comparisons... Perhaps we should be drawing the conclusions and forcing our government to draw the invasion and occupation of Iraq to a close.

Our call to action is clear. Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines-a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections. It was the most intense 11th hour pressure that just pushed aside Prime Minister Jaafari and brought forward a more acceptable candidate. And it will demand deadline toughness to reign in Shiite militias Sunnis say are committing horrific acts of torture every day in Baghdad.

So we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to deal with these intransigent issues and at last put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will actually empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country.

We need to make the deadlines realistic and meaninful, but we need to either force the hands of the Iraqi policial leaders or withdraw and let the civil war become so horrible that they will want to negotiate a peace. But I have already written that perhaps the solution lies in allowing Iraq to be divided into three separate nations, one for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis and one for the Shi'ites... all based on democratic principles and all sharing in the oil wealth.

So now, as in 1971, we are engaged in another fight to live the truth and make our own government accountable. As in 1971, this is another moment when American patriotism demands more dissent and less complacency in the face of bland assurances from those in power.

We must insist now that patriotism does not belong to those who defend a President's position-it belongs to those who defend their country. Patriotism is not love of power; it is love of country. And sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power. This is one of those times.

Lives are on the line. Lives have been lost to bad decisions - not decisions that could have gone either way, but decisions that constitute basic negligence and incompetence. And lives continue to be lost because of stubbornness and pride.

We support the troops-the brave men and women who have always protected us and do so today-in part by honoring their service, and in part by making sure they have everything they need both in battle and after they have borne the burden of battle.

But I believe now as strongly and proudly as I did thirty-five years ago that the most important way to support the troops is to tell the truth, and to ensure we do not ask young Americans to die in a cause that falls short of the ideals of this country.

Absolutely correct... The truth and our principles are what makes our nation great... We have strayed away from our own greatness.

When we protested the war in Vietnam some would weigh in against us saying: "My country right or wrong." Our response was simple: "Yes, my country right or wrong. When right, keep it right and when wrong, make it right." And that's what we must do again today.

That's a meaningful statement.

Unreasonable Expectations: Cybertracking By De Facto Government Agents

AG "Nut Case" Ginzalez Calls For 'Reasonable' Data Retention

There is a fundamental principle in our Constitution that requires the government to have probable cause for seeking the records of any private entity and for the government to have a compelling interest before it can regulate how private matters are recorded. The fundamental issue that Gonzalez and the entire Bush gang seems to be forgetting is that in America our records are essentially private and confidential unless there is a compelling reason to reveal them.

But that doesn't seem to bother the fear-mongering bastards from inisisting that the government has a right, and the authority, to compell any Internet entity to keep certain records for their use as they please. Now, one could imagine that the government might have some legitimate claim of compelling interest that requires a company--any company--to keep financial records. Certainly we can see that issues of consumer protection, anti-trust and fair business practices are essentially found in the financial records of a business. The "commerce clause" gives the government some leeway as to how to regulate business in these matters. However, requiring the retention of "user logs"--which is essentially a form of constant warrantless surveillance that is at the disposal of the government at their whim and pleasure--for an undetermined "reasonable amount of time."

The claim that these newly proposed rules for "user logs" is to fight cyber sex crimes is another way of instilling fear into our lives. This is in no way intended to dismiss the neinous nature of sexual predators and the role the Internet has played in recent predatory efforts. However, if Oprah, Dateline, and many local law enforcement agencies can identify, track and sting sexual predators without a broadly sweeping warrantless and unsubstantiated prying into the entire population of Internet users, why can't the federal government do the same?

The claim that the business practices--and resistance to the idea of turning over daily records of searches and Internet use history for all Internet users--somehow interferes with law enforcement efforts against cyber criminals (especially sexual predators) is ludicrous and asinine. If the government can identify an Internet user by time, cyber location (i.e. chat room, forum or web site), then they can seek a warrant for the ISP and the IP address assigned to that user and track them... and set up an efficient surveillance and sting operation without the need to track the entire Internet-using world. The fact is that most of the sexually-oriented cyberspaces are operated outside of the US and fall under the laws and jurisdiction of other countries.

But the reality is that if the US government forces the issue and calls for the fulfillment of Gonzalez's "dream team" partnership with all US cyberproviders, then what is to stop them from using those same provisions of law to track dissidents, outspoken critics, civil rights organizations, etc. The US government has been seeking such capabilities for years and has finally found a crime so repugnant to us and our basic values that we are once again motivated by fear to surrender "just a little bit more" of our basic rights and liberties. But this is an end-run that circumvents the Constitution and places our government in the same censorship and surveillance mode as the former Soviet Union, China and other countries that monitor all communications.

While some may dismiss my claim as leftist propaganda (and I do consider myself a moderate rather than leftist) and conspiracy theorist, I remind my reasers that I am a veteran and a constitutionalist. I look to the embedded principles found in our Constitution as my guiding light for our government... It is just too bad that our current batch of yahoos and hooligans in public office do not even read that document. It is also too bad that the current administration doesn't believe that it is responsible for the provisions of that document.

It is also noteworthy that the government already has laws and regulations in place that allow it to tag a user for record retention while they apply for a warrant based on probable cause, supported by evidence and testimony, that would give them 90 days to pursue the case.

The failure of some Internet service providers to retain user logs for a "reasonable amount of time" is hampering investigations into gruesome online sex crimes, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Thursday, indicating that new data retention rules may be on the way.

"The investigation and prosecution of child predators depends critically on the availability of evidence that is often in the hands of Internet service providers," Gonzales said in a morning speech to staff at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children headquarters here.

"Record retention by Internet service providers (that is) consistent with the legitimate privacy rights of Americans is an issue that must be addressed," he added.

CNET News.com was the first to report last June that the Justice Department was quietly shopping around the idea of legally required data retention. In a move that may have led to broader interest inside the United States, the European Parliament last December approved such a requirement for Internet, telephone and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers.

Congress is now considering policy changes, as News.com reported last week. At least one U.S. House of Representatives leader indicated he is mulling legislation that would require data retention. The topic surfaced at two hearings--convened recently by a House subcommittee--about online sexual exploitation and child pornography. Investigators of Internet sex crimes said they would like to see at least several months--and ideally, a year or more--of mandatory records retention.

The Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation took heat from subcommittee politicians for failing to send representatives to either hearing. Gonzales' talk was likely an attempt to show that the Bush administration is serious about taking new steps to root out child pornography. His remarks focused largely on what he termed an "epidemic" in the movies and images depicting the sexual abuse of children, exacerbated by the Internet's ability to create an anonymous haven for pedophiles.

The attorney general didn't indicate how long of a data-retention period he would support or whether he favored new legislation enforcing such a requirement. He said he has asked Justice Department advisers to come up with recommendations and would "personally" call the CEOs of Internet service providers "to solicit their input and assistance."

Mandatory data retention remains a controversial topic. Privacy advocates generally fear that such a law would allow police to obtain records of e-mail chatter, Web browsing or chat-room activity that normally would have been discarded after a few months--or not kept in the first place. Right now, Internet service providers typically discard any log file they don't need for business purposes, such as network monitoring, fraud prevention or billing disputes.

Proposals for mandatory data retention tend to follow one of two paths. One approach would require businesses to record only the Internet address that is assigned to a customer at a specific time. The second version, which is closer to what Europe adopted, would call for retention of more information including telephone numbers dialed, contents of Web pages visited, and recipients of e-mail messages.

The idea has drawn concern from the Internet service providers themselves, which worry about costs associated with storing the massive amounts of data and argue that existing laws give police sufficient tools to conduct investigations.

The White House Worms Turn... But The Ground Remains The Same

Things Change, and Stay the Same

Sometimes we do not need to comment very much...

President Bush wants to show the nation he's shaking things up in his administration, but it is clear that the people who messed everything up will remain in place. The press secretary goes; the political-and-domestic-policy adviser is losing half his portfolio. There's a new White House chief of staff. But the folks at the Defense Department are still on the job, doing ... what they've been doing.

Metaphors about deck chairs abound.

It's too soon to say how history will judge this administration, but it does look as if the first thing this president will be remembered for is the disastrous way the war in Iraq was conducted under Donald Rumsfeld, who, of course, isn't going anywhere. If there's a second thing we think history will shake its head over, it's the administration's cavalier disregard for the civil liberties of American citizens and the human rights of American prisoners. Needless to say, nobody's being replaced at the Justice Department.

The third great disaster of the Bush administration is a fiscal policy that has turned a federal surplus into a series of enormous budget gaps and an economy that depends on loans from China to pay its bills. The administration is changing the fiscal team, but doing everything possible to send the signal that there are no new brooms in this venture — just the same old faces with new labels. Rob Portman will morph from being the trade representative into being the director of the White House budget office. Mr. Portman, a longtime Bush loyalist, used his nomination acceptance speech to champion all the policies that wrecked things in the first place. More tax cuts will be forthcoming, he vowed, and budget cuts will make things balance out in the end.

President Bush has been slicing away at federal revenues by encouraging Congress to pass tax cuts for wealthy Americans. That usually isn't hard to do. The fact that there's been so much difficulty getting the latest round through the Republican-controlled Senate is a measure of how irresponsible the plans are. And everybody is well aware that the proposed spending cuts wouldn't go far enough to make up for lost tax dollars. Even budget cuts that are doable are anathema to an undisciplined legislature that is used to being allowed to spend whatever it wants by a feckless presidency.

Please read the rest of the editorial!

A Hobbesian Look At The NSA Spying Issues & Programs

Kilburn: The Hobbesian Turn

A small weekly paper serving the north Shore of Boston often turns out some interesting commentary. Michael Kilburn, whom I believe to be a professor of political science at Endicott College in Beverly, Massachusetts, offered a column that caught my eye. In the article he reviews a bit of the history of abuse of civil rights via wiretapping and gives us some significant reasons to reconsider any support of domestic spy programs.

Shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order authorizing the National Security Agency to begin conducting secret and warrantless surveillance of Americans. While the NSA routinely trawls electronic communication worldwide, searching for intelligence to protect US security and interests, it is prohibited by law from training its devices on American citizens without judicial oversight.

In fact, the very existence of this shadowy agency was only revealed in 1975, as a result of Senate hearings into illegal wiretapping that emerged from the Watergate investigation. (Until then, it was joked that NSA stood for "No Such Agency" or "Never Say Anything.")

Revelations of violations of civil liberties and worse by the Nixon administration led to the 1978 "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (FISA). This act created a secret court to provide nominal oversight of any domestic spying, while effectively giving intelligence agencies a free hand to eavesdrop on citizens. Practically no warrants have been refused in the 30 years of the court’s existence. The burden of proof is light, the proceedings secret, and permission can be granted after the fact.

While there isn't any new revelations for readers of this blog, the fact that a newspaper with a distribution of over 100,000 copies and a penetration of at least 30% (at least those were the paper's stats the last time I used them for advertising in 1993) actually printed the article and opened itself up to some heated debate and criticism demonstrates that there is a growing sentiment and intellectual assessment against the Bush administration and the congress critters that have openly supported the Bush gang shenanigans.

Nevertheless, a New York Times investigation recently revealed that the Bush administration circumvented even these cursory legal restrictions and has been secretly spying on thousands of American citizens, allegedly looking for connections to terrorism. While the White House claims that only a few Americans with clear ties to terrorist networks have been implicated, other reports suggest the program is much more widespread.

In other words, Bush lied again and broke the law in the process... and has tried to cover it up and make excuses for it.

Regardless, the logic of data mining techniques - used by the NSA inEchelon and other electronic eavesdropping programs - demands casting a very wide net. Such procedures were outlined publicly in the administration’s aborted "Total Information Awareness" program of 2002. When Congress and the American people recoiled from the Orwellian connotations of TIA, the program was renamed Terrorist Information Awareness and subcontracted to other programs and agencies. In theory and practice then, all Americans are potential suspects and are subject to government surveillance.

That is correct... ALL AMERICANS ARE SUSPECTS AND SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE... In other words, the protections that our founders and framers intentionally built into our Constitution are being ignored, circumvented and violated. All of us are being treated as suspect and criminal, even in the absence of any evidence, any action on our part or any accusation coming from a reliable party. Our rights are inherently violated in the mere assumption that we are suspects and criminals.

The White House response to the current revelations has been textbook Rovean jujitsu: turning the glaring weaknesses and shaky legal foundation of the policy into a daring hostile takeover bid. First, the name of the program was changed from "domestic surveillance" to " terrorist surveillance"; the journalists who reported the story and subsequent critics of the program were accused of subversion and aiding and abetting the enemy; and the president went on a nationwide barnstorming tour to defend and promote the policy.

The Bush Doctrine includes spinning and re-framing the circumstances into acceptable language that causes enough fear and intimidation that it generates a willingness to accept complete and utter violation of basic civil rights and constitutional protections.

This arrogance was reiterated in the State of the Union address where Bush claimed sweeping constitutional authority to conduct the war on terror on his own terms, with or without the support of the other branches of government.

In other words, he stood on a podium before an entire nation and all of its major representatives and outright lied... BUSH LIED AND OUR TROOPS HAVE DIED... for an unjust cause and an unreasonable course of action... and our rights and liberties are completely ignored. More on these issues can be found in the transcript of the most recent airing of CBS "60 Minutes."

Unswayed by these broad claims, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the legality of the program. In a contentious 8-hour testimony - though not under oath - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out the legal theory that the president’s inherent powers as commander in chief trumped any "peacetime" statutes. Among other creative accounting for such presidential prerogative, he asserted that the original Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Al Qaeda (passed unanimously on Sept 14, 2001) was effectively a blank check giving the president unlimited power in the broader "war on terror."

Republican chairman Arlin Specter dismissed this interpretation, saying it "defies logic and plain English," though it does reveal the scope of the administration’s broader agenda.

In other words, AG Gonzalez is a liar, a criminal (breaching our Constitution is a crime), and an utter legal moron.

The domestic surveillance program is only the latest example of the Bush administration’s ambition of a "unitary executive" that gives the president absolute and unchecked powers, including the right to interpret laws as he sees fit. While he has yet to veto a single bill, for example, Bush has extensively used executive orders and interpretive signing statements to subvert or thwart Congressional will as it applies to the executive branch. He has asserted unilateral authority to establish military tribunals, suspend habeas corpus, torture and indefinitely detain suspects in the war on terror without charge or trial.

The Supreme Court and Congress have been less indulgent of these claims, but according to the neo-Conservative ideology, Constitutional checks and balances - indeed the rule of law itself - is essentially an unnecessary inconvenience for executive authority and a dangerous distraction from the war.

In other words, the current political leadership of all three branches of our federal government is more committed to an ultra-conservative political ideology than a factual, constitutional and/or legal basis of government.

This position, entails a dramatic reversal of the very foundation of American political theory and practice; a Hobbesian turn. Thomas Hobbes was a 17th century English political philosopher who theorized the ideal form of government for times of unrest. While his notions of equality, popular sovereignty and the social contract were revolutionary at the time, Hobbes’ conclusion was quite reactionary. The only solution to the violent anarchy of sovereign equals waging a war of all against all, he claimed, was the complete surrender of liberty to an all-powerful Leviathan who alone could guarantee security. Life outside such a totalitarian state, he famously wrote, would be "nasty, brutish, and short."

But Hobbes' scenario was restricted to a complete and utter state of chaos and anarchy, not a time of war that was essentially being waged on foreign soil and only had some--SOME--fallout on our own soil.

Hobbes’ younger contemporary John Locke, however, took a more sanguine view of human nature and its political implications. For Locke, the state of nature was not utter violent chaos, but merely "inconvenient." The solution was not absolute power, but only the absolute minimum power necessary to facilitate relations among sovereign individuals. Should a government usurp too much power and become tyrannical, it was not only the right, but also theduty of free citizens to rise up in revolution against it. Locke’s version of popular sovereignty, conditional consent and limited government provided the theoretical justification for the Declaration of Independence and grounded the American Constitutionalism that followed.

It is important to note that the political philosophy that emerged--and is indeed embedded in the US Constitution--is that of Locke, not Hobbes.

The Hobbesian turn suggested by the positions and policies of the Bush administration in its ersatz "war on terror," of a nation surrendering its natural and constitutional rights in exchange for security, threatens the very tyranny America is supposed to stand against and demands a revolutionary accounting. In his Senate testimony last week, Gonzales criticized the very premise of the hearings, chastising the committee for imperiling the program by even discussing its existence. "Our enemy is listening," he said.

He may be more right than he knows.

Indeed, the enemy is within our own government... As a veteran I still recall the words of my oath that required me to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic." The enemy is George W. Bush, his gang and those that continue to support his tyrannical grab for power outside of the constitutional parameters allotted to his office, his party and his cronies.

What To Do About Iran?

Iran's Defiance Narrows U.S. Options for Response

It strikes me, as it should anyone watching the events in the Middle East, that the Bush administration has backed the US and the UN into a corner in terms of dealing with Iran. Iran is essentially thumbing its nose at the US because there is a severely limited number of options left open to deal with the threat that Iran presents to the US, our Middle East allies, and the international community.

The UN is essentially powerless and cannot get out of its own way. Essentially, the Bush decision to invade Iraq proved to the entire world that the UN was all but a paper tiger... all growl and no teeth. The IAEA is dependent upon cooperation with the country that is developing nuclear technologies. Without the essential support--absolute support--of the major powers of the world, of which there remains only two (US and China), the United Nations does not have the geopolitical strength or international influence. The Bush administration has all but pulled any teeth the UN might have had at one time. One must wonder if that was not part of the Bush plan all along.

The entire region surrounding Iran is in turmoil and is quite unstable. The Saudis are facing increasing internal pressures, even experiencing their own internal forms of terrorist acts, assassination attempts and a struggle between the traditional and modern views of Islam (as well as fundamentalist versus more liberal views of Islam). Wahabbism is losing its grip of the elite and young within Saudi society, while radical fundamentalism is gripping the uneducated and disenfranchised Saudis.

Bahrain has an internal problem between the elite wealthy, who are predominantly Sunni or Persian Shi'ite, and the largely uneducated, unemployed and poor who are Shi'ite, most of whom have some Persian heritage. Its royal family treats its own laws as rules for others to follow. The entire social structure is Bahrain is dependent upon foreign workers, being that out of almost 600,000 people on 30 or more islands, almost half are foreigners brought in to do domestic work, food service, sanitation tasks or menial labor. The new Amir, HRH Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa (whose father I had the honor of meeting), is in the process of modernizing Bahrain more assertively than his father, but also is a strong proponent of military force and a harsher view toward dissidents, especially those that express their disagreement by blowing up local establishments with makeshift IEDs using propane tanks. The recent opening up of political participation has allowed fundamentalist views to become a major issue of contention within the parliamentary process, but the Amir has a cushion in the process because one of the two houses in the parliament is 100% appointed by him.

Qatar is as equally unstable in terms of its work force and population. Yemen is equally troubled. The UAE has its share of problems as well.

Iran's status is in the news on a regular basis. But Jordan is not receiving enough media attention, and despite its long history of relative stability, there is increasing dissent and counter-establishment activity, including some radical Islamist activity.

Syria is as unstable as it has always been, run more by military influence than civilian oversight, and having a history of training, supporting and funding Islamic terrorist groups ranging from the PLO in its early days to Hamas. Its history of unethical involvement in the civil war in Lebanon is notorious and it is still in a state of de facto war against Israel.

Lebanon, while experiencing a recent resurgence toward its heyday, is now feeling the undercurrents of hate and discontent grow once again, and the evidence is pointing to the fingerprints of Syria once again.

Israel is also very unstable. It is still dependent upon its allies (predominantly the US) to keep itself alive. It continues to act like a "justified terrorist nation," claiming the right to act in an uncivilized manner toward Palestinians and any other nation that might oppose its existence, even through economic and geopolitical processes. The direction toward peace and resolution of the Palestinian issues is all but abandoned. The new elections brought forth a renewed support for hardliners, and retaliation. Although it is an unpopular view, but it is my opinion that Israel creates as many of its own problems as do its enemies. Another unpopular view is that many reasonable people view Israel as having committed terrorist acts with the complete support and involvement of its military and intelligence community. While I support the right of Israel to exist, defend itself, and prevent/intervene in terrorist attacks on its people, I cannot in good conscience support the indiscriminate actions against an entire group of people on the basis that all Palestinians are active terrorists.

Egypt is a hotbed of terrorism, but most of this activity is directed internally. Its government is as harsh and undisciplined in terms of human rights as is Myanmar and China. If it were not for the support of its military, the Egyptian government would be awash in daily assasinations and coups. Fortunately for the rest of the world, there are enough external threats to Egypt coming from Syria, Nigeria, Sudan and other surrounding nations that its military remains strong and committed to the current regime... but the moment a powerful military leader gets an inkling that a coup is needed (and will work), Egypt will experience another military change of government.

Then to the east, beyond Iran, are the three most dangerous states in the world: Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. I say these are the most dangerous states because they are in political, economic and military play. India and Pakistan are always facing each other down and threatening military force... and both are nuclear capable. Afghanistan is the new hotbed of the opium trade, surpassing the production of the Golden Triangle right under the noses of American and British troops. China is pushing for influence with Pakistan, and the military-led government of Pakistan is only strong in the big urban centers. The outskirting, almost inaccessible regions of Pakistan are essentially controlled by Imams and village leaders that are fundmental Islamists, opium-financed warlords, Al-Qaeda asscoiated groups, or other non-governmental powers. The Pakistani government 9or military) has almost no ability to enter the most remote areas of Pakistan's wilderness and frontiers without cooperation from the regional powers.

In the north, just above the entire Middle East, are the various former Soviet and Communist Bloc nations that are in a constant state of flux and turmoil, many of which are so desperate for economic improvement, international influence or mere recognition that they are willing to sell nuclear materials and scientific resources to the highest bidder... not to mention the vast influence of the Russian-styled mafia criminal elements trafficking in drugs, sex slavery, child pornography, weapons and anything that brings money to the leaders of the criminal element.

So what should we do about Iran? Our options are very limited.

As Iran takes a step closer to developing nuclear capacity, President Bush finds his options ever more constricted. The Iranians seem unfazed by U.N. statements. The Russians and Chinese won't go along with economic sanctions. And the generals at the Pentagon hate the idea of a military strike.

The White House declared yesterday that "it is time for action" by the U.N. Security Council, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on it to take "strong steps" to force Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment. But even as Europeans, Russians and Chinese expressed disapproval of Iran's latest move, there were no signs of consensus on what to do about it.

The central problem for Bush, according to aides and analysts, is that Iran has proved impervious so far to the diplomatic levers Washington and its partners have been willing to use. Some administration officials have grown increasingly skeptical that a solution can be found, raising the prospect that, like North Korea before it, a second member of the trio of rogue states Bush once dubbed the "axis of evil" may ultimately develop a nuclear bomb over U.S. objections.

Bush is especially frustrated with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has abandoned negotiations with the Europeans and defied international pressure while talking of wiping Israel "off the map." Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, complained during an appearance yesterday in Houston that it is hard to find a diplomatic resolution because Ahmadinejad "is not a rational human being."

That has left Bush with few attractive alternatives. "At this point, your options seem to be not good and scarce," said Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Your other option is living with it . . . and I think that's what will happen."

"Their Plan A is to put incremental pressure on Iran so it will cave," said retired Air Force Col. P.J. Crowley, a National Security Council aide under President Bill Clinton who now works at the liberal Center for American Progress. "And there is no Plan B."

Iran escalated the standoff by announcing that it has enriched uranium in a 164-centrifuge network to 3.5 percent. If true, the achievement would be a milestone but not one that necessarily makes a bomb imminent. Iran has insisted it wants nuclear energy for civilian purposes. Weapons-grade uranium would have to be enriched to at least 80 percent and would need thousands of centrifuges operating in tandem.

Iran reiterated yesterday that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at its facility in Natanz within a year and declared it would eventually expand to 54,000. Making so many centrifuges work together is especially tricky, according to scientists. Acting Assistant Secretary of State Stephen G. Rademaker told reporters in Moscow yesterday that, once built, a 3,000-centrifuge cascade could produce enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb within 271 days. A 50,000-centrifuge cascade, he said, would need 16 days to yield enough fissile material.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, headed to Tehran, and his inspectors are expected to report on whether the Iranian claims are true. But the announcement electrified the diplomatic circuit and highlighted the challenge to Bush. British, French and German officials all criticized Iran for "going in precisely the wrong direction," as German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier put it. Russia and China also called the development unwelcome but still resisted a tough U.N. response.

What Good IS Technology If Effective Nuclear Policy Is Not In Line With Homeland Security?

U.S. Weighs How Best to Defend Against Nuclear Threats

Once again, we are wasting our money--hard-earned tax dollars paid mostly by the middle classes--on technology when we haven't managed to put other aspects of our national security in order. Our failure to have a well-reasoned international nuclear policy that pressures nuclear-capable countries to conform to standards and practices that assure international safety undermines any and all efforts to produce technologies that would screen for trafficking of nuclear materials and weapons. While we are all focused on Iran and their recent nuclear improvements, we have failed to see that the ramping up of the nuclear threat by Iran is a response to the recent deals made with India regarding military and civilian nuclear technologies.

Quite frankly, I am surprised we have not seen a similar ramping up within other regional nations, especially Pakistan and North Korea. While we are busy calling certain nations evil, we are also busy creating an unstable region because we are engaging in unstable international policies and practicies.

It makes little sense to build detection technologies if we are going to create an environment where the real threat will come from creating international instabilities.

Beset by delays, cost overruns and technical problems, the U.S. government's quest to defend the nation against a smuggled nuclear weapon or radiological "dirty" bomb is approaching a crossroads.

In coming weeks, the Bush administration will award or initiate contracts worth $3 billion to develop a new generation of rugged and precise radiation monitors and imaging scanners designed to sniff out radioactive material at the nation's borders.

Authorities must choose in part between older, reliable technology of limited effectiveness and new, more costly, less proven devices that promise greater accuracy.

The stakes could hardly be higher: securing U.S. cities from a catastrophic attack with a weapon of mass destruction -- "the biggest threat we face today," as Vice President Cheney said often during the 2004 campaign.

The government has stumbled repeatedly with similar choices, costing taxpayers billions. In the nearly five years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration and Congress have poured more than $5 billion into homeland security detection systems, radiological and otherwise, only to find that the best available equipment at the time was often of limited use. It has spent $300 million on an early class of radiation monitors that couldn't tell uranium from cat litter and invested $1.2 billion in airport baggage screening systems that initially were no more effective than the equipment screeners used before.

"A lot of the money we threw out there was wasted because the technology was not so good," said James Jay Carafano, senior fellow for national and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation.

Last month congressional investigators reported that the United States is "unlikely" to meet its goal of installing 3,000 next-generation detectors by September 2009 and projected it will be about $342 million above its anticipated $1.2 billion cost. At the same time, initial testing of new technology produced "mixed" results, while costing more.

The struggle to complete what Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff calls a "mini-Manhattan Project" provides a case study of America's challenges in dealing with the 21st-century perils of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

To skeptics, even some close to the administration, the focus on stopping a nuclear bomb hidden in a container at the border is a costly fixation on a scenario that -- while nightmarish -- is not supported by intelligence and is overshadowed by other threats.

"This is the equivalent of a comet hitting the planet. Of all the things that are in the world, why are we fixated on this one thing?" Carafano asked. "Scanning containers full of sneakers for a 'nuke in a box' is not a really thoughtful thing."

Outrageous Gouging At The Pump... And Who Is Profiting?

Leaders Question Gasoline Prices: Hastert, Frist to Ask Bush for Probe

First of all, asking anyone in the Bush family--current president or past; current governor of Florida or potential candidate--to investigate, probe or even make an inquiry into the improprieties of price gouging from the oil companies is like asking the bank robber to investigate his own crime. The Bush family wealth is directly tied to oil companies and the cronies that are part of the oil game. It is the oil industry that gave the Bush family their clout.

Secondly, the congress has failed us citizens in doing anything real about the price gouging that has been the continuous modus operandi of the oil companies since the first major gas shortages in the 1970s. Investigation after investigation, probe after probe, hearing after hearing--all involving some version of a congressional committee or investigation--have failed to produce one scintilla of effort to curb the greed that is the oil barrons. Proof of that greed is the recent retirement package offered to the CEO of Exxon-Mobil, Lee Raymond, amounting to a minimum of $400 Million.

More proof of the greed is that Exxon-Mobil alone posted $36 BILLION in profits, coming out of our pockets at the gas pumps, oil tanks, LPG tanks, diesel truck tanks and airplanes. The drive to incrrease profits is costing us more for every plastic produced, every package made, and for every service or good purchased. Even the cost of being in Iraq and Afghanistan is increasing due to the greed of these oil companies.

We often get mad at the oil producing nations for setting crude oil prices as high as they do. But that is not the driving force behind the price at the pump. Contrary to what the oil industry tells us, the price of the oil we are purchasing today was set at least 6 months, if not longer, before the price jumped today. The claims that the refineries are not producing adequate amounts to meet the need is a complete and utter falsehood. Where I live is a large BP refinery (used to be AMOCO) that is only producing about 60% of its capacity. BP cut jobs when it took over the AMOCO plant and still produced most of its refined product in Canada, because it is cheaper to do with Canadian labor and the very friendly import arrangements made when NAFTA went into effect. Many oil companies are using state-run oil refineries in Mexico for the same reasons. The bottom line is that the deals being made are predominently hidden from public view and they serve to benefit the oil mongers. No North American oil refineries are producing finished products at full capacity... and that is by design.

Some time ago there was a petition sent around asking us to strike back by targeting the larger oil companies and boycotting their products and retail outlets. However, that strategy is inherently flawed because the oil companies ultimately sell their refined products to any gasoline distribution outlets that bring their product to market. While the profits are usually higher when these companies can directly control that distribution to branded outlets, the truth is that the only difference between CITGO gas and SUNOCO gas are the additives added just before the final distribution is made. Before adding these "proprietary additives" the refineries produce a generic form of gasoline at one of five octane levels, only three of which are used at gasoline retail outlets. So, if we were to boycott Exxon-Mobil, Sunoco, Shell-Texaco, Citgo, BP or any other major oil company, these folks would just stop adding the final additives and sell the gasoline to distributors that we are not boycotting. The pinch would not be felt by the oil companies per se, but by the independent owners and corporations that depend upon adjunct sales of snacks, sodas, cigarrettes and other "convenience items" sold at these outlets. We would in fact be hurting the little guy and not impacting the big oil companies in a significant manner.

However, there are four steps we can take that will impact the oil companies.

The first step is what I term a "revolving boycott." This action takes some local organizing and some detailed effort, but it is worth it in the end. Instead of boycotting a major oil company's brand and outlets, we boycott those stations posting the highest prices. When the price at a given station drops in response to the boycott, we reconfigure the boycott to "revolve" to the station posting the highest price. We continue this process until the prices are back to a reasonable level... and we remain vigilant when the prices start to creep back up.

The second step is that we organize and form local petitions that send DAILY messages, letters and press releases that call for a retraction of all existing tax breaks and incentives to any and all oil-related industries at both the state and federal levels. We insist that our representatives take aim at these oil companies and the related industries (plastics for example) and retract all subsidies--actual or in-kind--that they receive. We keep the pressure on for the next five years and insist that all oil companies be investigated by the SEC, IRS, FTC and DOE.

The third step is that we insist that our congress critters produce legislation that pushes forward energy-saving and fuel alternatives. We insist on government underwritten research on the technology and processes for producing alternatives to oil and oil-related products, and we insist upon the government getting a significant royalty from any industry that uses that technology, except when it is used by a municipal, county, state or federal government/agency, or a not-for-profit charity doing public service (i.e. energy cooperatives, municipal energy plants, fuel cooperatives, etc.). In furtherance of these efforts, we set up state and federal legislation that allows not-for-profit cooperatives to compete for the lowest oil, gas and other fuel resources and distribute via tax-free not-for-profit outlets.

The fourth step is that we take a serious look at our congress critters and insist that they pass sweeping reforms in terms of ethics, lobbying, campaign finance and the rules under which each house can propose legislation, attach amendments, bring bills to the floor and conduct our business. After all, what they do in congress is OUR BUSINESS and we should have better and tighter controls over how our money is spent, how our presence as a "super-power" and how our reputation as a nation is maintained.

Congressional leaders yesterday planned to ask President Bush to order investigations into possible price gouging by oil companies as crude oil prices hit new highs on world markets and average gasoline prices in the nation's capital blew through the $3-a-gallon mark.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) are preparing to send a letter to the president Monday asking him to direct the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department to investigate alleged price gouging and instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to issue waivers that might make it easier for oil refiners to produce adequate gasoline supplies, Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said.

Hastert and Frist's letter comes amid charges by some consumer groups and Democrats that oil companies have manipulated refineries and oil inventories to drive up prices. Hastert also took aim at the rich pay package for Exxon Mobil Corp.'s retired chief executive, which he called "unconscionable."

Yesterday, oil prices climbed to a new record, unadjusted for inflation, with benchmark crude rising $1.48 to settle at $75.17 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Average gasoline prices in the District reached $3.02 a gallon, up 3 cents from the day before.

Can We Say "LOGISTICS"?

Unforeseen Spending on Materiel Pumps Up Iraq War Bill

Tom Peters talks about "learning to fail quickly" because then we don't spend enourmous amounts of time, energy and money on wrong-headed plans and endeavors. While we must stay in Iraq at the moment, we must also recognize three important things that are the basis for our failure in Iraq:

1. We were wrong to go into Iraq in the first place and our wrong-headedness in that decision has cost us dearly... in terms of lives, injuries, long-term disabilities, national debt, international standing and our standing in the Middle East. We did not fully understand the culture of Iraq, the culture of the region, or the problems associated with Iraq itself.

2. We did not plan effectively when the decision to invade--that is, illegally invade--Iraq. We did not put enough troops on the ground. We did not have enough post-invasion materiel and building capacity in place when we "won" Baghdad. We did not fully comprehend the scope of the issues and problems that would confront our troops, our diplomats and our resources. We did not have financial, international and corporate resources in place before we went to Baghdad. Our planning stopped at predicting a photo opportunity onboard an aircraft carrier with a banner that read, "Mission Accomplished." We rushed a contract to Halliburton because they were friends of the Bush gang... and have failed to review that award, the service provided and the costs over three years. The price gouging that has occurred is even above the traditional screwing we have become accustomed to when dealing with the military-industrial complex. We are so used to being taken by defense contracts and defense contractors that when we see a bill for $500 for twenty liters of bottled water we don't even bother to blink any more.

3. We have not properly planned, assessed, controlled, budgetted or forecasted the costs of being "over there." It is here that we have no one to blame but ourselves because we have not been bitching loud enough to our congress critters about the costs... and they keep being the consistent "yes men" as long as Bush allows them to duck and cover from all the bad press about Abramoff scandals by creating other scandals that keep us distracted.

With the expected passage this spring of the largest emergency spending bill in history, annual war expenditures in Iraq will have nearly doubled since the U.S. invasion, as the military confronts the rapidly escalating cost of repairing, rebuilding and replacing equipment chewed up by three years of combat.

The cost of the war in U.S. fatalities has declined this year, but the cost in treasure continues to rise, from $48 billion in 2003 to $59 billion in 2004 to $81 billion in 2005 to an anticipated $94 billion in 2006, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The U.S. government is now spending nearly $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, up from $8.2 billion a year ago, a new Congressional Research Service report found.

Annual war costs in Iraq are easily outpacing the $61 billion a year that the United States spent in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972, in today's dollars. The invasion's "shock and awe" of high-tech laser-guided bombs, cruise missiles and stealth aircraft has long faded, but the costs of even those early months are just coming into view as the military confronts equipment repair and rebuilding costs it has avoided and procurement costs it never expected.

"We did not predict early on that we would have the number of electronic jammers that we've got. We did not predict we'd have as many [heavily] armored vehicles that we have, nor did we have a good prediction about what our battle losses would be," Army Chief of Staff Peter J. Schoomaker recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Steven M. Kosiak, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments' director of budget studies, said, "If you look at the earlier estimates of anticipated costs, this war is a lot more expensive than it should be, based on past conflicts."

The issue will be hotly debated next week when the Senate takes up a record $106.5 billion emergency spending bill that includes $72.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed a $92 billion version of the bill last month that included $68 billion in war funding. That funding comes on top of $50 billion already allocated for the war this fiscal year.

The bill is the fifth emergency defense request since the Iraq invasion in March 2003. Senate Democrats say that, in the end, they will vote for the measure, which congressional leaders plan to deliver to President Bush by Memorial Day. But the upcoming debate will offer opponents of the war ample opportunity to question the Bush administration's funding priorities.

Defense officials and budget analysts point to a simple, unavoidable driver of the escalating costs. The cost of repairing and replacing equipment and developing new war-fighting materiel has exploded. In the first year of the invasion, such costs totaled $2.4 billion, then rose to $5.2 billion in 2004. This year, they will hit $26 billion, and could go as high as $30 billion, Kosiak said. On the other hand, at about $15 billion, personnel costs will drop 14 percent this year.

Total operations and maintenance budgets will rise 33 percent this year, while investment in new technologies will climb 25 percent, according to the Congressional Research Service.

World Bank Gets Readiness Bug... Finally

World Bank's Internal Examination Urges Disaster Readiness

Color me surprised, but I seem to remember an old adage that say "an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure." Worldwide preparation, building of adequate infrastructure, development of layered security systems, prevention and proper training need to be the way world relief funding directs its aid because it will save money, time and lives.... and US tax dollars leaving our nation and our coffers.

Maybe if we saved a ton of money on WMF funding, we could pay some attention to our own issues of preparedness, infrastructure, prevention and training.

The World Bank should pay far more attention than it does to helping poor countries prepare for predictable natural disasters and not simply to rebuilding after them, according to a report by a self-evaluation arm of the Washington-based institution.

Much of the tens of billions of dollars in disaster-recovery loans and grants are going to rebuild the same flood-, hurricane- or earthquake-prone locations with little or no thought to ensuring that these places, and their residents, end up better able to withstand future catastrophes, the reviewers said.

"We have more scientific know-how today than we did before. We know the vulnerability; we know the hot spots," said Vinod Thomas, a World Bank economist who directed the review. "But prevention is far more the exception than the norm."

Both providers of aid and the recipients need to realize that "as you react to a disaster, think of the next one. Build stronger mitigation early on."

The bank's Independent Evaluation Group suggested a range of steps in a 179-page document, "Hazards of Nature, Risks to Development."

They include purely physical improvements: stronger buildings, more long-lasting temporary housing, rebuilding roads to make them more efficient at moving large populations. The report also calls for equipment and training, such as tsunami or cyclone early warning systems, which would permit people to flee disasters.

It also urges using World Bank loans to stimulate changes to the economies of countries recovering from natural disasters.

For example, less than 2 percent of disaster losses in developing countries are covered by insurance, compared with about 50 percent in the United States. The bank should encourage the growth of an insurance sector in low-income countries, as it will make them less dependent on charity and may indirectly lead to better preparedness through measures such as stricter building codes.

The World Bank does a lot of post-disaster lending -- 528 projects worth more than $26 billion since 1984.

Free The Condoms Now!

Easy Access To Condoms: Michelle Cottle

The New Republic is a magazine (online and print) that takes a fairly conservative-to-moderate approach to issues and problems that face us. While I do not always find TNR's take on an issue fully developed, I find that there is at least enough thinking through a problem to give them a read and then more thought.

In the past, I have written and advocated for access to condoms for any sexually active person on the moral basis that negligently (or deliberately) passing along a sexually transmitted disease is as big a sin as beating someone in the street, even if it does not rise to the legal standard of doing so. Additionally, from the moral perspective, creating an unwanted pregnancy is a travesty for the conceived child, the unprepared parents, tyhe grandparents that all too often have to provide some sort of support, and the society that has to pick up the bills for pre- and post-natal care, as well as years of child support via welfare, WIC, food stamps, etc.

It is interesting that the author of the TNR piece is a woman. The impetus of this article is the idea that CVS, the nation's largest provider of healthcare products via a chain of pharmacies, is deliberately kowtowing to pressures to put condoms--a perfectly legitimate healthcare product--locked up behind counters and away from public view. The pressure to do so is coming from the ultra-conservative Christian Right. The next thing you know they will be pressuring CVS to hide sanitary napkins, tampons, feminine hygiene sprays, personal lubricants, vaginal douche products as well as medications for hemorrhoids from the public view.

If people are not free to go to a pharmacy to buy healthcare products in an open environment, what are we saying about our society? Are we saying that we want epidemics of various sexually transmitted diseases? Are we saying we want to see a rising number of people dying from HIV/AIDS? Are we saying we are more than willing to have unwanted teen and adult pregnancies, more people on the welfare roles, and more responsibility for raising other people's children?

I've never been a big condom fan. They're awkward to handle. They smell funny. Guys whine about how uncomfortable they are. And if one of the little suckers should ever break on you in the heat of the moment, it's enough to send any sensible gal into a full-blown panic attack.

That said, I consider condoms to be one of life's little necessities--and the widespread, easy access to them a must-have for any civilized society not wishing to find itself awash in unwanted pregnancies. Say what you will about abstinence-only education--though, while you're saying it, be sure to point out that there is vanishingly little, if any, credible evidence showing it to be effective at decreasing either pregnancies or STDs--any society serious about reducing abortions had better get serious about its condoms.

Which is why I was horrified to read in the "Health" section of this week's Washington Post that a number of drug stores around the Washington area--most notably nearly half the stores in the market-dominant CVS chain--have started locking up condoms, requiring customers to summon a pharmacy assistant in order to procure a box. Unlike so many recent dust-ups over the barriers to contraception, the problem here isn't politics, but shoplifting. "We're not trying to restrict access," CVS spokesman Mike DeAngelis told the paper. "We're trying to prevent people from stealing."

As DeAngelis explains it, CVS allows individual stores to determine on a case-by-case basis which products to lock up, based on the area's shoplifting problems. (The Safeway and Giant grocery chains have similar policies.) Other high-theft products often stashed away for their own protection include hair-care products, baby formula, and, ironically, pregnancy tests. Unsurprisingly, most of the stores now keeping their Trojans under lock and key are located in less affluent areas--where most people would expect the rate of five-finger discounting to run a little higher than in flush neighborhoods.

At first, I read this explanation with a small sigh of relief that the conservative wing-nutters weren't behind yet another attempt to impose their faith on our genitals. Of course, the Post did include the obligatory quote from an anti-contraception activist--in this case Citizens for Community Values president Phil Burress, who boldly proclaimed his delight at the condom impediment: "I'd rather see them locked up," he said. "It's a lie that condoms prevent all sexually transmitted diseases anyway. People should be educated about that and practice abstinence." But in a piece about stores erecting contraceptive barriers (whoo-hoo! a double pun) for people who have clearly already made the decision to have sex, this line of argument sounded even more absurd than usual.

Burress's comments did, however, point to an unusual problem with this particular hurdle: Precisely because it's not ideologically driven, no one is going to care enough to do anything about it. Seriously. If this piece had been about CVS stores locking away condoms to placate crowds of Focus on the Family types who didn't want their kiddies buying Trojans on the sly, you can bet it would have been splashed above the fold on A1. (Just ask Wal-Mart how much bad publicity a company is asking for by wading into the morality-of-contraception debate.) But even to get people to read to the end of this piece, the reporter felt compelled to search out an unrelated-but-sure-to-be-inflammatory abstinence comment from a third-tier zealot.

Apologetics: Been Away From Blogging For A While

My apologies to all that might be reading my blog... I have been away attending to family matters and such. But I am back... and blogging.

The Passing Of Walter Tabaczynski

Many people come and go in our lives. We attach ourselves to people at various stages in our lives, and sometimes we are lucky enough to find people so generous and loving that it impacts our lives. In that respect, I have been a very fortunate person.

Some many years ago I made friends with Ron Tabaczynski. We met at college and found ourselves to be kindred spirits in many ways. Ron is a good friend and I consider myself lucky to have his firendship. As our friendship developed, I attended many gatherings with Ron's family. I even had my eye on one of his sisters once upon a time. However, the most striking aspect of our friendship is being a part of the Tabaczynski extended family. Ron's parents are among the most loving, most generous people I have ever met. From the first visit I ever made to their home I was accepted as a part of their lives. I have always been welcomed in their home, and I have taken great joy in seeing the family grow over the years, even though I have often been distant and not present at many of the family functions.

On Easter Sunday, Walter Tabaczynksi, Ron's father, passed away at the age of 83. "Uncle Wally," as he was known to everyone on his neighborhood block, was a good man. In my experience, he always had a smile and a kind word. Even in moments when he was aggravated by the circumstances, he seemed to roll with the punches a lot better than most. "Mr. T," as I affectionately referred to him, was a hard-working stiff for most of his life. He went to work, suffered setbacks and layoffs, struggled with the bills, and raised four children by taking double shifts and shifting priorities to make sure the family stayed together. He was also a decorated veteran, having served and been wounded in the line of duty. He was a member of "the greatest generation," to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude.

As his surname indicates, he was a Polish immigrant to the United States. His family has deep roots in that Polish heritage. Tabaczynski family gatherings are often celebrated with ample servings of pierogi, kielbasa and other Polish traditions. Year after year, the Tabaczynski home would be filled with Christmas cheer because Mr. T would have the chore of putting up all of the Christmas decorations that Mrs. T, his wife of many years, would insist on having. The family joke is that her decorations alone made NIPSCO, the local electric company, profitable during the month of December. But Mr. T would grumble a bit and still make sure that all the lights and decor were up.

Sometimes, I had the opportunity to speak with him when no one else was around. He was proud of his family and did not see a need to let life wrap him up in knots. Because I was Ron's friend, we would talk about Ron more than other family members. He would laugh at the political activities that Ron engaged in, but still express the pride he had in his son for taking a responsible step for improving the world. He was also a deeply religious man, making a concerted effort to attend mass on a regular basis, and followed the teachings of Jesus in a way that spoke louder than 20 evengelical preachers. His love for others and kindness spoke louder than his words.

Walter Tabaczynski was not a complicated man. He did not go to college, nor did he strive for high office or public recognition. His life was, by the standards of many, simple. But in my eyes, his life was more meaningful and has had a greater impact than most people that get media attention, recognition and accolades. He has left a lasting legacy in each of his children and grandchildren, and in the hearts of those that loved him as a friend.

I pray that God welcomes Mr. T. personally at the gates of heaven, sends angels of mercy and comfort to help his family deal with the void his passing has caused, and that the love for God that Mr. T. held in his heart will continue to be felt through his family and friends.

Walter Tabaczynski will be missed.

They Say "Protect Patients Now" But What They Mean Is "Protect Our Wallets & Incompetence"

About Protect Patients Now!

Under the guise of the Human Events Online Newsletter, sponsored by staunch ultra-conservatives that support ultra-conservative entertainers like Ann Coulter, the Protect Patients Now Project (an endeavor of Doctors for Medical Liability Reform) makes the following claim:

The Diagnosis
Personal injury lawyers are driving good doctors out of the practice of medicine. Many doctors are cutting back on high-risk services, relocating to states with more patient-friendly liability laws or leaving the practice of medicine altogether. As a result, in many states doctors are harder and harder to find – especially in specialties such as OB-GYN, neurosurgery and emergency medicine.

Some states have enacted medical liability reform legislation, others have not. The result is a patchwork system that only benefits personal injury lawyers – at the expense of patients.

The American Medical Association has identified 20 states currently experiencing an access-to-care crisis. Of the remaining states, 24 have the potential to be deemed "in crisis." Only six states are considered stable – the common denominator is that all of them have instituted some type of medical liability reform.

The problem is that this claim is not about protecting patients at all. I have worked with doctors since I was about 18 years old. My role has been as a Hospital Corpsman in the Navy, medical social worker, mental health counselor, substance abuse counselor, family and child welfare worker, advocate for homeless persons and underserved populations, etc. There have been doctors that I admired for their thoroughness, committment to patients, willingness to work with patients in developing treatment plans, knowledge... and most of all their understanding that they did not have all of the answers.

Some of those doctors include Dr. Michael Eggers, Dr. Steve Gunderson, Dr. Tom Blasko, Dr. Ken Oetter, Dr. Steven Corse, Dr. Lawrence Churchville and a few others. But there are also doctors that I have come to disrespect for their arrogance, failure to care for patients in a meaningful manner, lack of openness for input from multiple disciplines, and for not following through with comprehensive treatment planning.

It is unfortunate that a vast majority of the doctors (and hospitals) that suffer malpractice suits are in litigation for what amounts to nothing less than negligence. Doctors, for the most part, do not take the time to listen to patients, to work with patients, to address patient concerns, and to assess (follow up on) patient needs outside of what a lab report indicates.

A good case in point is my own treatment of kidney stones at the VA in Boston. Every time I scheduled an appointment, I was switched to a different resident or intern. I was asked the same questions over and over because the new resident did not bother to read the chart. I underwent 7 CT scans, each one being read without reference to the previous. As a result, if someone were to read my VA medical history, I have anywhere from 3 to 7 kidney stones in my right kidney. One report indicates that I have 4 stones in my left kidney. Another indicates I do not have any stones in my left kidney. (Trust me... there are stones in my left kidney!) Some reports indicate that I have experienced mild pain, some indicate severe pain.... even though what I told them was that there are days when the pain is mild but constant, and other days when the pain is severe and constant.

And the kicker is that there is a non-invasive treatment for my stones that could have been done, but the VA would not pay for a trip to the hospital where the technology existed within the VA system, nor would they pay for a local hopistal with the technology to do it. When the invasive procedure they forced me to do failed, they told me that the stones would eventually pass.... They said this in 2000 and here it is 2006 and I am still suffering.

But doctors are not alone in the cause for law suits. Hospitals, insurance companies, HMO managers, and our state and federal governments are intimately involved in the lack of proper medical care, the failure to inspect doctor offices and hospital facilities properly, and the failure to regulate medical schools more tightly. Then of course, are the involvement of the medical schools, the medical associations and the failure of the industry to police itself.

We do not need reform of our legal system just yet. While it is true that we do have our share of frivolous malpractice suits, part of that is the way in which we are instivtively taught to cover up our errors. The University of Michigan Hospitals legal department has adopted a different stance regarding suits and charges of malpractice... They sit, listen, investigate and remediate... saving millions in law suit fees, legal fees and settlement costs. But if doctors--especially those with a record of being sued--were to take a look at the way they are conducting their practice, then perhaps the suits would be less in number and severity.

But what irks me is the willingness of ultra-conservatives to hide their identity and intent by claiming that their efforts are to protect patients. Bovine excrement in extremis!

Unusual Call For Resignation

Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals: Ex-Iraq Commander Calls for Resignation

Usually, most retired generals and admirals try to shut their mouths when it comes to US foreign policy. There is a certain unwritten rule of respect for the uniform and the service that keeps retired officers--especially career officers--from making such comments without extreme cause.

Let's see the number of retired career officers that are willing to speak out against the Bush administration and its policy in Iraq:

Maj. Gen. John Batiste (USA)- Commander 1st Infantry in Iraq (2004-2005)

Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold (USMC) - Director of Operations: Joint Chiefs of Staff (2000-2002)

Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (USA) - Commander Iraqi Army Training Units (2003-2004)

Gen. Anthony Zinni (USMC) - Chief US Central Command (1990s)

Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson (USMC) - Commander: Pacific Theater

Maj. Gen. John Riggs (USA)

LTC (Mary) Ann Wright (USAR) - Also member US Foreign Service Diplomatic Corps

Those are the officers willing to speak on the record.

The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called yesterday for Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly criticized the defense secretary's authoritarian style for making the military's job more difficult.

"I think we need a fresh start" at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005, said in an interview. "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork."

Batiste noted that many of his peers feel the same way. "It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," he said earlier yesterday on CNN.

Batiste's comments resonate especially within the Army: It is widely known there that he was offered a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there but he declined because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld. Also, before going to Iraq, he worked at the highest level of the Pentagon, serving as the senior military assistant to Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense.

Batiste said he believes that the administration's handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort. In other interviews, Batiste has said he thinks the violation of another military principle -- ensuring there are enough forces -- helped create the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal by putting too much responsibility on incompetent officers and undertrained troops.

His comments follow similar recent high-profile attacks on Rumsfeld by three other retired flag officers, amid indications that many of their peers feel the same way.

"We won't get fooled again," retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who held the key post of director of operations on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 to 2002, wrote in an essay in Time magazine this week. Listing a series of mistakes such as "McNamara-like micromanagement," a reference to the Vietnam War-era secretary of defense, Newbold called for "replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach."

Last month, another top officer who served in Iraq, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times in which he called Rumsfeld "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically." Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003-2004, said that "Mr. Rumsfeld must step down."

Also, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a longtime critic of Rumsfeld and the administration's handling of the Iraq war, has been more vocal lately as he publicizes a new book, "The Battle for Peace."

"The problem is that we've wasted three years" in Iraq, said Zinni, who was the chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, in the late 1990s. He added that he "absolutely" thinks Rumsfeld should resign.

On Tuesday, Gen. Peter Pace, who is the first Marine to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, attempted to tamp down the revolt of the retired generals. No officers were muzzled during the planning of the invasion of Iraq, he said.

"We had then and have now every opportunity to speak our minds, and if we do not, shame on us," he said at a Pentagon briefing. "The articles that are out there about folks not speaking up are just flat wrong."

Lawrence T. Di Rita, a counselor to the Defense Department, disagreed with the retired generals' characterizations of Rumsfeld's style. "People are entitled to their opinions. What they are not entitled to is their own facts. . . . The assertions about inadequate exposure to military judgment are just fundamentally incorrect," he said.

Other retired generals said they think it is unlikely that the denunciations of Rumsfeld and his aides will cease.

Please take the time to read the rest of the story.