Letter to Weekly Standard

Bill Kristol came out against US performance in Iraq, suggesting that the US effort there was short of personnnel. I wrote the following letter to him:

28 February 2006

Bill Kristol
The Weekly Standard
1150 17th Street, NW Suite 505
Washington, DC 20036

Subj: Your statement on Fox News Sunday that US has “...not had a serious three-year effort to fight a war in Iraq”

Dear Mr Kristol,

As a liberal blogger, I won’t belabor the pre-war estimates of the manpower needed to overthrow Saddam Hussein AND to stabilize Iraq in the aftermath. As Rumsfeld has said [paraphrasing] “Ooh Gawwd! I’m like, sooo sick of hearing about how Shinseki was right and I was wrong!!”

My question is, how come I don’t recall you and Limbaugh and Coulter and Hannity, etc., etc., making pitches for people to enlist in the Army? It became obvious to me during the much-longer-than-planned battle at Umm Qasr that the Iraqi army America was facing was a great deal tougher than the rag-tag, unmotivated recruits we routed during the 1991 war. Granted, I had nine years in the Navy and was a military history buff long before that, but my information sources were all strictly public and non-classified. I can’t believe that I saw the significance of this and that the US chain of command didn’t.

At the time, I was unaware of the dilemma faced by the US commander at the three-square-mile ammo dump at al Qa-qaa. He apparently had to choose between making the charge towards Baghdad and between leaving behind enough troops to properly secure that dump. Again, there’s no question that people like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Feith and anybody else in that chain of command was aware of the shortage of personnel that dictated that fateful choice.

I suspected at the time but have not run across any evidence that their shortage of personnel persuaded the Army not to try and prevent the entirely predictable, wholesale orgy of looting and destruction that followed the fall of Baghdad. But I’ve simply never found credible the explanation that the folks in charge were just too stupid to realize the horrible PR black eye the chaos would give to the US occupation. The difficulty of managing the reconstruction of Iraq, heck, of maintaining Iraqi society in the meantime, also seemed obvious to me at the time. A bureaucrat without an office is like a pilot without a plane or a sailor without a ship, i.e., more or less useless.

Given that the need for more “boots on the ground” was blatantly obvious long before Bush’s aircaft carrier “Mission Accomplished” speech and that the need for more troops became even more obviously necessary once that insurgency began in earnest by August 2003, it’s a mystery to me why you and other conservative spokespeople have never once made any serious recruiting pitches to your conservative and Republican followers.

Why is that?

Richmond L Gardner
PN3(Ret), USN, 1991-2001

The US press, Rice & Mideast diplomacy

Now y'see, this is what annoys me about the US press. These are the last four paragraphs in a 10 kilobyte story about Secretary of State Rice trying to bring the blessings of democracy to the Mideast.

In the Arab world, the impression left by Rice's trip -- which also included stops in Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates -- was that she was on a mission to round up support to punish a series of U.S. enemies, such as Hamas, Iran and Syria. The campaign against Hamas, formally known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, drew particular scorn because it was seen as hypocritical to want to punish a group that had achieved power through democratic elections. The United States and the European Union have designated Hamas a terrorist organization.

The skepticism in the region was reflected in the blunt questions posed to Rice by Arab journalists.

In Saudi Arabia, a female journalist, dressed head to toe in a black abaya, demanded: "How is it possible to harmonize the U.S. position as a nation supporting freedom of expression and the right of people to practice democracy with your effort to curb the will of Hamas?"

Egyptian Television's Mervat Mohsen also rattled off a series of tough questions. "American calls for democracy have unwittingly brought unprecedented support for the Muslim Brotherhood, but you're not happy with the Muslim Brotherhood in power," he said. "Is this some kind of designer's democracy then, Dr. Rice?"

It would have been nice to have gotten Rice's answers to these very good and relevant questions, just as it would have been useful to have placed these quotes at the beginning of the piece so as to have given readers a better flavor of the obstacles that Rice was facing in trying to convince Arabs that the US was serious about democracy. As it is, the US is having a difficult time covincing Arabs that it isn't simply using democracy as a cheap talking point, as something to be dragged out when convenient and ignored when it conflicts with other foreign policy goals.

More hysterical justifications

ON SEPT. 11, 2001, three planes carried death and destruction to American targets.

Wow! That was quick! A conservative arguing that we should surrender our Constitutional rights in exchange for false promises of safety delivered by an administration that doesn't even seem to care about seaport security. Usually, people at least wait a couple of sentences before gnashing their teeth, rending their garments and screaming "9-11! 9-11!" Notice what the author then does in the next paragraph. Note especially the two passages I've emphasized:

On Sept. 14, Congress passed a resolution giving George Bush authorization to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against the masterminds of the attacks. In those dark moments, we resolved to use any means at our disposal to deter future attacks.

The first passage cites what the legislation that was passed actually said. The second cites what some citizens, by no means all citizens, felt was necessary to be safe.

Daschle, a former Democratic senator from South Dakota who helped negotiate the resolution with the White House, said the resolution did not grant President Bush authority to order warrantless spying on Americans suspected of terrorist ties. Daschle said warrantless wiretaps of Americans never came up in the negotiations.

"I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps," Daschle wrote in an article on the Post's opinion page. "I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance."

Daschle said the White House sought, but failed, to have included in the resolution language that would have given the president war powers within the United States. He said he refused "to accede to the extraordinary request for additional authority."

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text."

The following statement then, is dishonest in the extreme:

...the same body that enacted FISA issued the enabling authorization. And contrary to what some critics claim, the resolution was not limited to sending troops into Afghanistan. Read the language.

The language is quite clear and specific and, as Daschle says, does not authorize warrantless wiretaps.

It's naive to believe that the NSA controversy is about privacy.

This is a highly cynical and insulting statement. It completely denies that anybody with an opinion different from the President's could possibly be sincere or is arguing in good faith, as an American citizen who wants the best for his or her fellow citizens. Naturally, there is no attempt to prove this statement by any citation of facts or evidence.
Is this a controversy about "executive power, its limits and its prerogatives"? Of course it is, no doubt about it. Nor is there any doubt that citizen privacy and what the Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment, says about "unreasonable searches and seizures" is also at issue. There's no reason whatsoever to suggest that Congressional opponents are being in any way dishonest or cynical.

But a clear and unbiased examination of this administration's actions shows that, at the very least, Bush and his advisers believed that they were acting under a constitutional umbrella.

There is no reason to disparage this statement. We can grant the Bush Administration the honest belief that it was and is acting within the law of the land. But their belief that what they were doing was legal does not translate into "What they were doing was legal." Somebody can sincerely, even fervently believe in something. That doesn't make it true.

The administration briefed key members of congressional oversight committees as well as the chief judges of the FISA court. If any of these individuals felt that the program crossed into illegality and, worse, unconstitutionality, they could have spoken up years ago.

Actually, they could not have done so as the following passage shows:

...according to a newly released letter sent to him that month by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). Pelosi, the ranking Democrat on the committee, raised concerns in the letter, which was declassified with several redactions and made public yesterday by her staff. [emphasis mine]

If Pelosi's letter had to be declassified before she could share it with the public (The same article states that "The substance of Hayden's response one week later, on Oct. 17, 2001, was redacted.") then there is no mystery whatsoever as to why opponents of the program did not speak up. They were only permitted to speak privately to the Administration and the Administration didn't care very much for their views.

Not being sure of her case, the author feels obliged to close with yet more 9-11 horror:

...the screams of the innocent and the smell of burning flesh.
...their blood will not have been shed in vain.

Bush Administration vs seaport security

A mere 13 days after the attacks of September 11 in 2001, two committees, one from the Senate and one from the House, agreed to ask the Secretary of Transportation to develop recommendations for strengthening seaport security, the issue was considered that important. Four years later, the Bush Administration has aroused bipartisan fury and astonishment by trying to hand control of US seaport security over to a company wholly owned by the United Arab Emirates. "The Bush administration says it found no security risk in the deal but would not elaborate, saying the details are classified."



It is of course possible to overstate risks to US security as opportunity costs due to increased vigilance are great. "Educational visa applications in the United States fell by almost 100,000 from 2001 to 2003, reflecting in part the hassle created by homeland security." More inspections at border checkpoints may mean milllions of dollars a day in lost business and
increased immigration controls are known to hurt industry. The Bush Administration has been accused of trying to paint an image of a "border out of control." in order to sell Americans a guest-worker program that "virtually eliminates the possibility of establishing residency and citizenship for the 8 to 10 million undocumented workers and their families currently residing in the U.S."



The Bush Administration appears to have been rather stunned by opposition to the deal with the UAE as there has been little concern about the fact that "China's biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports in the United States, as do a host of other foreign companies". Still, there are concerns about the UAE and the investigation that seven members of Congress are calling for are required by law anyway.



Currently, the Bush Administration has decided to take a highly aggressive approach to defending the deal, the President even going so far as to threaten a veto if the deal is derailed.



UPDATES: The Administration appears to have taken the tack of "The President is a clueless moron" by having Bush say that he wasn't really aware of the proposal yet. Ms Seal feels
that Bush is lying.

Democrats notice: "Gee, that's funny! Many of the Republicans screaming and yelling about the deal have been opposing seaport security measures for years now!"

White House has financial ties to Dubai firm. Can we say "crony connection?"

Huh! So liberal opponents of the deal are motivated by racism, eh?

Do business and national security REALLY mix?

War with Iran? Prediction is set for March 28th

[Originally written 2/12, revised 2/17]

Is the Bush Administration trying to launch a war on Iran? With the tight secrecy and known dishonesty that the Administration has demonstrated in the past, any conclusions are necessarily tentative. There are many reasons to believe an attack is on the agenda, but strong reasons to think that an attack will never take place.

News from the AP on US posture towards Iran:

“WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is asking Congress for $75 million in an emergency spending bill to support democracy in Iran, Bush administration officials said Wednesday.”

“The money, to be included in a supplemental 2006 budget request the White House is expected to soon send Congress, will be used for radio and satellite television broadcasting and for programs to help Iranians study abroad...”

If the situation were reversed and Iran was requesting money to “support democracy” in the US and in that spirit, to fund “radio and satellite television broadcasting” from satellites and transmitters in Mexico and Canada, the likelihood is about 100% that Americans would see that as an attack on America's political institutions. The fact that the requested $75 million is termed as an “emergency” measure also suggests that the Bush Administration is in a hurry to establish a presence in Iran, whether it's to set up scouting locations to prepare for an offensive later on or to get a fifth column started up so as to weaken Iran from within.

This request continues a very disquieting trend dating from the “Axis of Evil” State of the Union speech in 2002 where Iraq, North Korea and Iran were described as partners threatening the world with Weapons of Mass Destruction (A phrase dating back to 1937, but that did not enter popular usage until the invasion of Iraq in 2003.) and which all required an aggressive response. The trend was continued in (selected passages from) the latest State of the Union speech:

“At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran...”

“Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace.“

“Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity. (Applause.)”

“The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end. (Applause.) The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. (Applause.) America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.”

“Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran. (Applause.)”

So what is the likelihood that the US will invade Iran? According to William Engdahl, the US faces very formidable obstacles in doing so:

“Iran a vast, strategically central expanse of land, more than double the land area of France and Germany combined, with well over 70 million people, and one of the fastest population growth rates in the world, is well prepared for a new Holy War. Its mountainous terrain makes any thought of a US ground occupation inconceivable at a time the Pentagon is having problems retaining its present force to maintain the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations.”

Engdahl also documents a very close and increasingly closer trade relationship between Iran and Russia, suggesting that Russia desire to be a “global player”. Others suggest that Iran is "playing" Russia and is pursuing a hostile and contradictory course. Engdahl points out that China is also heavily involved and has sold Iran “...thousands of tanks, armored personnel vehicles, and artillery pieces, several hundred surface-to-air, air-to-air, cruise, and ballistic missiles as well as thousands of antitank missiles, more than a hundred fighter aircraft, and dozens of small warships. “

It appears then, that a US invasion of Iran would involve the US in a global conflict with the US and possibly Europe facing off against their old Cold War nemeses Russia and China. It's also noteworthy that the US appears to be fighting to maintain the hegemony of the Dollar versus the Euro. So is such a scenario likely to occur? Unfortunately, the US has not been acting like a responsible power for the last several years.

Pillar describes for the first time that the intelligence community did assessments before the invasion [of Iraq] that, he wrote, indicated a postwar Iraq 'would not provide fertile ground for democracy' and would need 'a Marshall Plan-type effort' to restore its economy despite its oil revenue. It also foresaw Sunnis and Shiites fighting for power.”

“Pillar wrote that the intelligence community 'anticipated that a foreign occupying force would itself be the target of resentment and attacks -- including guerrilla warfare -- unless it established security and put Iraq on the road to prosperity in the first few weeks or months after the fall of Saddam.' "

Yet, we see that the Bush Administration invaded Iraq anyway and appears to have relied upon a “faith-based” strategy, founded mostly upon wishful thinking.

Let's also remember the comment by an anonymous Bush aide (Who many people believe was Vice-President Cheney):

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.' ''

It would be very, very nice to believe that the Bush people have developed a sober, sensible plan based upon reality and not upon wishful thinking, but that appears to be a pretty long shot.

Copy of letter to Time Magazine

John Dickerson being interviewed by Al Franken

First off, I agree with commentators who have stated that the whole era started by Bob Woodward, the whole idea that “If we get really close to our sources, we can get great scoops” has reached the end of its' useful life. If a whistleblower needs to reveal that, say, their supervisor is an arrogant, close-minded 24-year-old who is confusing his role with that of a KGB political officer, then the whistleblower will obviously need a way to access reporters and obviously needs to have his or her identity protected.

But for reporters to be cultivating close personal relationships with Bush Administration figures like Karl Rove is just sad. If Rove needs to get a story out, I assure you he'll find a way. There's simply no need for reporters to bend over backwards in order to make it easy for Rove to get his talking points out.

I'm not arguing Rove should be betrayed or outed, I'm arguing that reporters shouldn't be cultivating close relationships with people in his position in the first place. The situation with President Bush's story about foiling a 2002 plot to attack towers on the West Coast is one that demonstrates the usefulness of an arms-length relationship with ones' sources. Reporters who were not closely associated with the Bush Administration were able to dig up the fact that the mayor of LA didn't know anything about the alleged plot. The reporters with close personal relationships could tell the public what the Rovian talking points were and that's about it.

The whole Judith Miller story is a perfect example of a reporter getting all of these great, wonderful, fantastic “scoops”, in return for the devil's bargain of giving up her skepticism and allowing herself to be used to get out the Administration's talking points. She and Time Magazine appear to have acted like victims of the “Stockholm Syndrome” and everybody in both organizations acted like they all had to preserve the personal relationship that one or a few reporters had cultivated, even if it meant lying to the American public (or the functional equivalent thereof) by simply quoting Administration stories and denials as though there were no other side to the story.

Do Administration sources offer useful information behind closed doors that help reporters understand the story better and so report it better? Perhaps, but that understanding can't be shared with the public. If reporters instead got their info from Congresspeople or other folks who have received classified briefings, but who are speaking on the record, that might be a way to square the circle. You could receive information, all of which can be shared with the public, but it would be coming from an informed source who understands how it all fits together. If politicians don't wish to reveal how decisions are made or what goes into their decisions, then they're the primary losers as the public will lose faith in them. By giving reporters insights that reporters can't share, the public loses as reporters then lose sight of who they're responsible to and of how much information can be shared.

As a member of the public I ask you, please maintain an arms-length distance from your sources. There is absolutely no percentage whatsoever in getting so close to these people that reporters start losing their skepticism and objectivity and begin lying to the American public in order to maintain their close, cozy and confidential relationships.

Gonzales attempts to defend warrantless NSA spying

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales began his opening statements as to why the Bush Administration directed the National Security Agency to spy on perhaps thousands of American citizens. Republican Senator Arlen Specter expressed skepticism about the Administration's story, Specter told Gonzales that even the Supreme Court had ruled that "the president does not have a blank check." Lawyer and liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald explains in an interview why the NSA spying case is of bipartisan concern. "The reality is-is that the scandal is about whether or not we live under the rule of law and that is not a conservative or a liberal debate-that is an American value..."

In an oft-quoted segment, Gonzales maintains that well...yes, al Qaeda members are aware that they are under surveillance, "But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget." which is apparently meant to suggest that the American people will be tipping off al Qaeda if they talk to much about such things.

Local political analyst Dick Polman points out that Democrats and liberals are all over the place on the issue. There is no one "liberal position", with progressive blogs expressing astonishment that "There are no email blasts from Senate offices, no elected rep teams organized to fling quotes and talking points at the press, no bloggers coordinating fifty possible small tasks..." to Governor Tom Vilsack declaring that "If the president broke the law, that's unacceptable. But I think it's debateable whether he did". In any event, the Attorney General seems to find disarray among the opposition very convenient as the blog firedoglake notes that Gonzales doesn't seem terribly inclined to answer questions from Democrats, even though he appears to answer very readily when Republicans ask questions.

The Bush Administration, meawhile, has made it quite clear that it intends to come out of this looking good, at all costs:

"Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November."

" 'It's hardball all the way,' a senior GOP congressional aide said."

The blogger Digby finds it very highly likely that the Administration was and is spying on domestic political opponents.

UPDATE: This story was posted on PhillyIMC and picked up by the National IMC.

Gonzales' upcoming testimony on NSA spying

DailyKos looks at the preview of Gonzales' testimony that will be delivered Monday:

Gonzales also plans to chastize the media, saying "Contrary to the speculation reflected in some media reporting, "the terrorist surveillance program is not a dragnet that sucks in all conversations and uses computer searches to pick out calls of interest."

Really? Someone forgot to tell Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff:

"Now, what we're trying to do is gather as many dots as we can, figure out which are the ones that have to be connected and we're getting them connected," he said.

While refusing to discuss how the highly classified program works, Chertoff made it pretty clear that it involves "data-mining" -- collecting vast amounts of international communications data, running it through computers to spot key words and honing in on potential terrorists.

Hey, if the Bush Administration had released the surveillance logs to people that we, the citizens of the United States could trust to tell us the truth, well maybe we wouldn't be having such a problem with speculation.

Dunno, with both a terroroist attack on the SuperBowl predicted and the Bush Administration getting increasingly impatient with Iran, seems like the testimony might never take place. AmericaBlog wonders "With what Army?" Oh, and Richard Perle argues for striking Iran sooner rather than later.

The "Environmental President"

In my posts on the SOTU, I wondered about the lack of any reaction from progressives to Bush's promises to adopt more environmentally-friendly, sustainable methods of moving our automobiles and heating our homes. Rush Limbaugh was quite convinced that liberals "ought to be having multiple orgasms" over Bush's alternative energy proposals. His analysis of those proposals appears to be right on the mark, though: "He's just putting this stuff in there to, you know, to ameliorate the -- everybody in the audience. Gotta give everybody something in a State of the Union address, even the environmentalist[s]."
So how have the alternative-energy solutions fared within two days of their being announced? Well, er, um, not so much, actually:

Diplomatically, Mr. Bush's ambitious call for the replacement of 75 percent of the United States' Mideast oil imports with ethanol and other energy sources by 2025 upset Saudi Arabia, the main American oil supplier in the Persian Gulf. In an interview on Wednesday, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said he would have to "seek an explanation" from Mr. Bush.

And today:

Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally. [emphasis added]

Ah well, so much for the "environmental president". Not that anyone on this side of the aisle believed him anyway.

Analysis of 2006 SOTU

From Bush's 2006 State of the Union speech:

No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam – the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death. Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder – and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder. Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Beslan … or blow up commuters in London … or behead a bound captive … the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.

This is a part of the speech that was delivered in a slow and sober manner, but the language here is absolutely hysterical. I don't mean hysterical in a funny “Ha-ha” sense, I mean hysterical in an arm-waving, screaming, running-naked-down-the-street sense. Are “terrorists” (This word is, as always, very vaguely defined and universally applied to the national enemy of the moment, pretty much regardless of the actual tactics or methods used.) like bin Laden “serious about mass murder”? Duh! Bin Laden engineered 9-11 (Allegedly anyway. Websites like 911Truth have serious questions about that.) so of course he's “serious” about it! As is quite normal for Bush, he engages in “straw man” arguments. He accuses people of asking questions nobody ever dreamed of asking or of making assertions that no one ever dreamed of making. Who is America is honestly under the impression that bin Laden is not serious?

“Their aim is to seize power in Iraq”. Okay, let's take this claim at face value. Is there any serious possibility that such a thing could be done? People have counted the foreign jihadists among insurgent casualties (No, there's no way to tell what proportion of the jihadists are al Qaeda.) and among prisoners taken in the field. I have yet to see a serious estimate above 7% and most of them are in the range of 3% or 5%. Now, if the jihadists wanted to take over from within a peaceful society, if they wanted to launch a surprise coup and suddenly take control, this plan might make a bit of sense. How they are supposed to wrest control of Iraq from a well-armed and organized insurgency doesn't make any sense at all. Might Zarqawi be the Dr Moriarty of Iraq, the e-e-e-evil mastermind behind the Iraq insurgency? Doubtful. The Middle East Institute published a study in August 2003 on the Iraq insurgency that remains one of the better and more sober views of the insurgency that I've seen. They estimated that there were up to 15 separate, independent groups engaged in armed combat with the American occupiers of Iraq. I find it very highly doubtful that al Qaeda will remain operating in Iraq for as much as a month after American soldiers have been driven out or after a negotiated withdrawal has taken place. To delay a withdrawal from that country for fear al Qaeda will take over is just plain silly.

The best way to break this addiction [to oil] is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly 10 billion dollars to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources – and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.

Nearly $10 billion? Hey sounds real good! Oh, by the way, how much profit (Not gross earnings, profit) did Exxon stash away for just this last quarter? Oh, $10.7 billion. So the President thinks that putting as many research dollars into replacements for oil as a single company has profited by in a single quarter amounts to a serious program?!?!? Puh-leez!!

Oh, and...

FACT - BUSH PUSHED FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY CUTS IN LATEST BUDGET: President Bush's FY06 budget request for the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) energy efficiency and renewable energy programs envisioned "reductions totaling nearly $50 million - an overall cut of roughly four percent." [Renewable Energy Access, 2/28/05]

The reaction of the audience I watched the SOTU with was also quite interesting. Basically, their reaction was non-existent. Not surprising, as Bush has done little or nothing to press for already-proven technologies. How many wind-power station openings has Bush or any member of the Bush Administration gone to? LeftCoaster summarizes the Bush Administration approach to energy issues.

Max Blumenthal at the Huffington Post covers the incident cited by Bush as to the reason he's asking for his NSA spying program to continue. Was America's inability to put wiretaps onto suspected members of al Qaeda the reason 9-11 succeeded? Hardly. The reasons had more to do with simple ineptitude and incompetence. Tom Tomorrow also has a great piece on that.

As for Bush's earnest and heartfelt peans to liberty and democracy and all that fine stuff, firedoglake has a post on how Cindy Sheehan was treated when she wore a t-shirt to the SOTU address that conflicted with the happy-happy joy-joy images that Bush and his image-makers preferred. We mean, y'know, protest and all that is fine and dandy, but well, y'know, it's gotta be the right sort of protest, it has to fit in with the themes of the day and all.

State of the Union
Observed at Arch St United Methodist Church
31 Jan 06

Moderated by Rev Robert Hynicka - Arch St
Panelists:
Ed Schwartz - Institute for Study of Civic Values
Rev James Allen - Vine St Memorial Baptist Church
Rabbi Avi Winokur - Society Hill Synagogue
Sister Mary Scullion - Project HOME


Just how dedicated IS this president to establishing a society on the model set forth by John Winthrop and William Penn?
Values are the focus of tonight's talk.
Alito represents a backwards move. Death of Coretta Scott King is not a hopeful sign either. It'd sure be nice to receive some sign that the president or someone, cares about the many problems outlined.
The difficult life of those in poverty. 13,000 families have income equal to those of 20 million other families. 100 million people have less than 1% of nation's wealth.
About quarter of nation is really struggling financially, tomorrow Congress considers bill to reduce deficit. We must make it happen.

(2100 = 9:00pm)

2100: Introductions and cheering for individual guests. Presume that lengthy cheering indicates short speech.
2108: President finally announced
2112: Enters. Acknowledges CSK. Calls for goodwill and mutual respect. We can choose to take on challenge or seek an easier life.
2116: Mentions 9-11
2117: Mentions purple fingers and other democratic "triumphs".
2118: "Radical Islam" is the enemy. They seek "totalitarian control" over Mideast. Lots of clapping in Congress, Audience quite calm here.
2120: Rejects false comfort of isolationism. Seeks to marginalize insurgency.
2122: Declares "We are winning"
2123: Critical decisions NOT made by politicians in Washington DC
2124: Criticizes critics.
2127: Introduces first guest of honor. Calls upon Americans to "never forget sacrifices of military families".
2130: Democracies of Mideast will not look like our own. Criticizes Iran. We respect Iran but look forward to democratic Iran.
2132: Mentions AIDS, other problems.
2133: Keep watch for terrorism here at home.
2134: Reauthorize Patriot Act! Mentions 9-11 again.
2135: Terrorist surveillance program i.e. NSA spying program
2137: Economy in great shape. Against protectionism. Immigrants necessary.
2140: Tax cuts led to four years of uninterrupted growth. Pushes for permanent tax cuts. Big applause for that one.
2141: Cutting $14 billion next year. Wants line-item veto. Wants to rein in entitlement spending. Congress failed to act on Social Security. Audience here laughs. Wants bipartisan solution to problem of baby-boomers.
2145: Calls for orderly, secure borders.
2147: Wants to use health info tech to reduce costs.
2148: Medical liability reform gets enthusiastic applause. Calls for alternative energy sources. Congress sounds very enthusiastic. Audience here wants to see actual progress.
2153: Calls for compassionate, decent, hopeful society. Things are wonderful and people have quietly progressed.
2156: Mentions Roberts & Alito.
2157: Calls for banning of all cloning technology.
2159: Wife
2200: $85 billion spent on Gulf Coast.
2203: Ends. Audience here quiet and impassive throughout.

Speakers started out with pro-Bush speaker. Every single other speaker anti-Bush, one of whom read out Fourth Amendment. Speaker points out that one companie's profit for one quarter equals total spending on all alternative energy research.

Speakers after comments universally critical.

Article on NSA spying case

The article from the Times makes very few assertions concerning the Administration's case for allowing the NSA to spy on American citizens. One of those assertionns is that the AUMF, the Authorization to Use Military Force (passed after the September 11 attacks), authorizes the Administration's actions. The study done by the Congressional Research Service (Page 33) and released on January 5^th has already “done the smackdown” on this assertion.

In general, I've always distrusted articles that purport to take an objective, even-handed view of anything. I've always found articles that took a clear, straightforward, partisan view to be more trustworthy. That way, I don't have to guess at motivations and agendas, I know that the author is trying his or her best to make a particular case. I feel towards these the way I feel about the downtown Philly vegetarian restaurant that serves courses that are made up to look like meat. The heck with that! Gimme the green beans! Give me something that looks like a vegetable, not something that tries to look like a meat.

(The restaurant makes a very good plate of green beans, btw. They sautee the beans with chopped garlic. Yum!)

Detained Muslims return seeking justice

There are of course many things we do not, and may never, know about the policy of detaining Muslim men after 9-11 and which continued for far, far too long after that. The United States Justice Department needs to explain especially, why the detainees from New York City were kept imprisoned for such an extended period of time:

At a closed immigration hearing on Nov. 20 [2001], three weeks after their arrest, the brothers agreed to immediate deportation. By Dec. 7, the lawsuit says, F.B.I. memos stated that clearance checks on the Ibrahims had shown no links to terrorism. But they were held six more months - Hany until May 29, 2002, and Yasser until June 6.

After they were detained in the wake of 9-11, they have charged that:

Physical abuse, the lawsuit says, began the moment they arrived, chained and shackled. As Yasser described it, guards supervised by Lieutenant Pray slammed his brother face-first into a wall where an American flag T-shirt had been taped, then did the same to him.

Pain became part of the brothers' daily routine, the lawsuit charges. Escort teams cursing them as Muslims and terrorists slammed them into every available wall when they were taken from their cells, twisted their wrists and fingers, and stepped on their leg chains so that they fell, their ankles bruised and bloody, according to the suit.

None of this sounds as calculated or depraved as the tortures of Abu Ghraib and other locatons discovered later were and:

The Federal Bureau of Prisons has fired two detention officers, suspended two for 30 days and demoted one in connection with the Brooklyn inquiry, said Traci Billingsley, a bureau spokeswoman.

Which appears to justify the oft-stated faith of the returned former detainees that America is a land of justice and fair play. Nevertheless, the lawyer for the men sounds as though she has it right when she claims:

"The kind of torture, interrogation and arbitrary detention that we now associate with Guantánamo and secret C.I.A. facilities really started right here, in Brooklyn."

Back during the good old days, back when Americans could have pride in their country, justice for those who were accused of crimes was taken quite seriously:

Here is the story [of the Boston Masscre] as Paul Revere tells it. "Twenty-one days before, on the night of March 5,1770, five men had been shot to death in Boston by British soldiers participating in the event known as the Boston Massacre. A mob of men and boys taunted a sentry guard standing outside of the city's costume house.When other British soldiers came to the sentry's support, a free for all ensued and shots were fired into the crowd. Four died on the spot and a fifth died 4 days later. Capt. Preston and six of his men were arrested for murder, but later were acquitted through the efforts of attorneys Robert Auchmuty, John Adams, and Josiah Quincy who took their defense to ensure a fair trial. Later two other soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter." [emphasis added]

Sigh! Those were the days.

Latest on Steven Hayes' claims

David was amazed that I could read a few paragraphs of the Weekly Standard story and conclude that the story was unreliable propaganda, so I've included the heart of my objection here. Can I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the story is false? Not without someone that we on the left consider trustworthy examining the papers. Until then, we'll have to make do with indirect examinations.

1. Cui bono? Latin for Who benefits? As the Bush Administration tried very hard to hint that Saddam Hussein was allied with al Qaeda before the Iraq War, then clearly, they do.
2. What's the source of the information? Again, the Bush Administration. The story is structured in such a way that there is no one outside the Administration who can verify anything.
3. Are there any odd features about the story, anything that's hard to explain rationally? Yes. My sister worked as a paralegal for about a decade. Dealing with large quantites of written material was one of the things they did. Standard procedure is that the paralegals takes first crack at it. They identify the important papers and passages within the papers. After everything is looked through, highlighted and catalogued, the big, important and expensive lawyers look at it and run through the important sections with a fine-tooth comb.
   As captured papers might have contained hints of where WMD were hidden, the Administration should have seen to it that the papers were surveyed and catalogued right away. America doesn't have a huge supply of people who can read Arabic, but the need was not for people with a detailed, fluent grasp of the language. The need was for folks who knew Arabic well enough to have gotten the gist of what each paper was about. In this way, 2 million documents could have and should have been processed within a couple of weeks or perhaps a few months. By the time the inspectors (I believe Iraq had about a thousand inspectors running about) concluded there were no nukes in Iraq, the captured papers should have been processed.

ThinkProgess' analysis of David's latest claim:

After pointing that Vice-President Cheney is a believer, they point out that

If the documents are so beneficial for the administration’s case for war, why haven’t they been released yet? This is where it gets fishy. The Defense Department says it won’t release the documents because, if it did, the documents would create bad press for the administration:

The main worry, says DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and mischaracterize their meaning. “There is always the concern that people would be chasing a lot of information good or bad, and when the Times or the Post splashes a headline about some sensational-sounding document that would seem to ‘prove’ that sanctions were working, or that Saddam was just a misunderstood patriot, or some other nonsense, we’d spend a lot of time chasing around after it.”

It seems more than likely that the documents aren’t beneficial and the only way they can get some good press out of them is to characterize them to a right-wing flak like Steven Hayes.

They then point out that Cheney and Hayes have both been engaged in passing on (as the British term it) "dodgy" information.

MediaMatters' take on the question:

MediaMatters notes the disputes over the source Ibn Al-Shaykh al-Libi and concludes al-Libi was passing on "spurious" claims. They then point out that:

Hayes has a conspicuous record of misinformation regarding Iraq War intelligence. His book, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (HarperCollins, 2004), purported to demonstrate numerous links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. But as Media Matters noted, the leaked Defense Department memo upon which much of Hayes's book is based has been discredited, and the Defense Department distanced itself from the memo in November 2003, describing its contents as "inaccurate." In two recent Weekly Standard articles, Hayes offered a litany of falsehoods and distortions regarding the alleged leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

In short, there is no reason for a non-Bush Administration supporter to take the latest claims from Hayes seriously.

An ombudsman who doesn't appear to understand her job

Deborah Howell is the ombudsman for the Washington Post. The function of an ombudsman is to keep an eye on reporters, to correct them when they're wrong and to insist on remedies when things go awry. Reporters are human, they make mistakes, they get too close to their sources, they allow their human sympathies to overwhelm their professional judgment, they don't remain detached enough to do their jobs effectively. The ombudsman is supposed to be a counterweight to that tendency. An ombudsman is supposed to correct the inevitable problems that arise.

Washington Post reporter Susan Schmidt has been christened "Steno" Sue Schmidt for her slavish devotion to her sources in the Bush Administration. She's known for writing what they tell her, whenever they tell her, using the exact phraseology they use.

In Schmidt's story, "The Fast Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff" the connection of Abramoff to the Republican Party is not clear until the 15^th paragraph. Before then, she describes Abramoff as dealing with “politicians” and "lawmakers", making everything sound very bipartisan. Schmidt does mention Abramoff's close connections to Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, very important people to the Republican Party, but relatively obscure to the general public. Atrioscaught the passage on Abramoff and Tom DeLay (Former House Majority Leader and premiere Republican Party fundraiser) and reproduced another Schmidt passage:

"DeLay, a Christian conservative, did not quite know what to make of Abramoff, who wore a beard and a yarmulke. They forged political ties, but the two men never became personally close, according to associates of both men."

Major problem though. Earlier, on October 18:

"Ney and Abramoff, whom DeLay once described as 'one of my closest and dearest friends,' crossed paths as early as 1996. That year Ney took a trip to Montenegro sponsored by a foundation that had links to Abramoff, who was a lobbyist for Montenegro."

Also:

Dan listed all the quality time Tom spent with Jack and asked:

Dan:...are you concerned?

Dick: There's no question that they are friends and Tom Delay's not the kind of person that's going to turn his back on a friend that's in trouble---Tom Delay is not going to abandon Jack Abramoff just because Abramoff has done some illegal things.

And from Michael Isikoff:

"For years, nobody on Washington's K Street corridor was closer to DeLay than Abramoff. They were an unlikely duo. DeLay, a conservative Christian, and Abramoff, an Orthodox Jew, traveled the world together and golfed the finest courses. Abramoff raised hundreds of thousands for DeLay's political causes and hired DeLay's aides, or kicked them business, when they left his employ."

Were one to read Schmidt's article critically and without having heard anything about it beforehand, one would have a very difficult time believing in the legitimacy of telling the story in an "even-handed" manner, i.e. in a manner that showed Democrats and Republicans in an equally bad light. It's quite clear from the evidence presented that it does not in the slightest support the notion that Abramoff worked for or gave a single red cent to the Democrats. People have examined and reproduced the official record and sure enough, every single solitary contribution Abramoff gave throughout his entire life went to politicians with an "R" after their name. Democrats didn't get a dime.

Were your average responsible, diligent manager to come in as ombudsman and note that Schmidt had some problems keeping her story straight and some difficulty with over-applying the concept of balance, i.e., trying too hard to make the Democrats and Republicans look equally guilty, one would think that the ombudsman would issue a truly fair and accurate statement that clearly laid out the issue, wouldn't one? Well, one would be wrong.

Deborah Howell wrote on January 15th that:

"Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

This is simply, purely, flat-out wrong. Howard Dean appeared with Wolf Blitzer and made the following comments on the case:

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

[Author's note: Blitzer was clearly taken aback at this assertion and made a very audible "harrumph" sound.] BLITZER: Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.

Comments poured in to the Washington Post blog The Post responded by getting all huffy and defensive and eventually, by deleting comments. The blog firedoglake wrote: "Li'l Debbie Can't Handle the Truth" and wondered why the Post was now claiming that reader comments were so awful, that deletions were called for.

Ms Howell tried to "clarify" her remarks later:

"I've heard from lots of angry readers about the remark in my column Sunday that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties. A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties."

Problem: There's no evidence that Abramoff 'directed' any contributions anywhere. The Indian tribes that gave money to Democratic politicians did so because they felt those particular Democrats would represent them on particular issues. If there's any proof to the contrary, if there's any evidence that Abramoff directed the Indians to give money to Democrats, that evidence has yet to be made public. The blog Wampum has been discussing the issue from the point of view of the Indians.

Lou Dobbs weighs in:

"For the record about a third of the money from Jack Abramoff and his clients did in fact go to Democrats and 2/3 to Republicans. That's the reality. Don't blog me! It's the fact. And poor Washington Post ombudsman not being able to deal with reality on their own blog."

Problem: Jack Abramoff and his clients should be considered two separate groups, not as one group lumped together. They don't have the same goals in giving cash to politicians. Abramoff gave to, and played a substantial role in, the Republican Party. The tribes gave to the politicians they thought would advance their own interests.

See MediaMatters for how to write to media companies concerning their commentators. Click on the desired media company, click on the first story concerning them and the corporation's contact information will be featured on the right side of the column.

Weekly Standard story

Stephen Hayes claims in The Weekly Standard that Saddam Hussein trained “thousands of radical Islamic terrorists“and that:

Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis.

A word about military designations: If we were to say that there were not enough soldiers to hold the line and we had to employ sailors, everybody would understand what we meant as “soldier” and “sailor” are pretty much universal military terms. For a country to train “terrorists” would make sense as their use would presumably be to commit acts universally recognized as terrorism, i.e. blowing things up, assassinating people, taking hostages, etc. But when the use of that personnel changes, when one speaks of “some of these terrorists returned to Iraq”, one comes dangerously close to using “terrorist” as a legitimate military term, which it isn't.

The word “terrorist” has essentially meant the same thing as “bandit” did back around the time of World War I (i.e. the “bandit” Pancho Villa), it's a word universally understood to mean “bad guy”, “enemy”, “sneaky, underhanded villain”, etc., etc. What weapon or vehicles do such personnel use? (For instance, a cavalryman uses a horse, a sailor uses a ship, etc.) Well, Pancho Villa used a horse, the villains of the “Munich Massacre” in 1972 used regular infantry weapons, the villains of September 11^th in the US used civilian airliners and the insurgents in Iraq use improvised roadside bombs. There's simply no such thing as someone having the military designation of “terrorist”. Once someone goes to Iraq and begins fighting American troops, he by definition becomes an “insurgent”.

As the number of Iraqi insurgents is now estimated to be 13,000 to 17,000, it doesn't seem terribly likely that the people allegedly trained before the Iraq War constitute all or even most of the opposition to the presence of US troops in Iraq, especially as only “some” returned.

The additional fact that the article doesn't identify a single person who can verify any of this is also very powerful evidence that the story is garbage.

The notion that it took until May 2005 to find any evidence of this and the further allegation that the Bush Administration decided to keep it a secret utterly beggars belief. The article itself points out that this information, if indeed it existed, would be of enormous propaganda value to the Bush Administration, as the statement “There was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq” is a favorite phrase used by the anti-war left.

We hear the excuse that our military exploitation group has 2 million documents in various media to examine. There are no Iraqis who can guide Americans through this vast pile? How long would it have taken a group of 50-100 Iraqis to have catalogued all of the items? I can't imagine it would have required more than a few months as 90% would most likely be worthless, i.e., home videos, supply requisitions, transfer paperwork, etc. And why are there no captured/turned insurgents who would know of this group of 8,000?

Sorry, but this story makes no sense at all. I nominate it as “fairy tale of the month”.

UPDATE: The allegation has been made that Jose Padilla had written out an al Qaeda application and that it constitutes some of the evidence being used against him. Al Qaeda is going to ask for paperwork? Huh? A covert, guerrilla/terrorist organization is going to collect paperwork in the first place? No one else has been caught by using any of the other applications? Padilla was the ONLY person who was caught by this method?

Sorry, not credible at ALL.

And another point...

Just to emphasize a point that I touched on n my last post, Atrios repeats a point made by others:

Wanker of the Day

Jeff Goldstein, as a representative of the rest of the conservatarian blogosphere.

Not a single troll stepped up to the plate last night. So, consider this thread another opportunity to answer this:

Can anyone - anywhere - explain, just a little bit - just one time - how "national security has been damaged" by revelations that the Administration was eavesdropping without FISA-required warrants and judicial oversight rather than with them?

-Atrios 9:25 AM


Darn good question. Let's think about this. If I'm a bad guy who wants to cause harm to America and I've long known that the NSA has the capability to spy on me legally and intercept my electronic communications legally and I then learn that the NSA is doing so illegally, what the heck difference could that possibly make? How does that effect me one way or the other? Is any American going to tolerate my activities under any circumstances?

As I've mentioned to various friends and buddies, this looks a whole heck of a lot like another COINTELPRO operation, an operation that ran from 1956 to 1971 that had the FBI not only monitoring domestic disssident groups, but actively disrupting them. There were a lot of genuinely bad groups that the FBI investigate via COINTELPRO, but there were also a number of antiwar and black liberation groups as well. A modern-day operation would not only be aimed at real bad guys, but would also cast a wide enough net to reel in environmentalists, Quakers, gay and lesbian organizations, pro-choice groups, etc., etc.

More on NSA spying program

First, let's hear Bush's explanation on the NSA spying program:

"It's seems logical to me that if we know there's a phone number associated with al-Qaida or an al-Qaida affiliate and they're making phone calls, it makes sense to find out why," Bush said. "They attacked us before, they'll attack us again."
--------------

Asked how he responds to Americans worried about violations of their privacy, he said, "If somebody from al-Qaida is calling you, we'd like to know why."

The president said that he is conscious of people's civil liberties.

"This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America and, I repeat, limited," he said. "I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy's thinking."
------------

"The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers called from the outside of the United States of known al-Qaida or affiliated people," he said, adding that he believes that he is acting within the law.

Hmm. So let's get this straight. Gonzales and Card go to Attorney General Ashcroft's bedside after Ashcroft has had an operation because the acting Attorney general won't sign off on the spying program. Check out TBogg's summary of the acting Attorney General Jim Comeys career (Wherein he also relates that Michelle Malkin referred to Comey as "...an underling filling in for his boss..."). Despite Malkin's dismissive tone, Comey is clearly not a newbie. This is not a person fresh off the boat. Keep in mind that the Senate unanimously approved him to serve as Deputy Attorney General. If Comey had problems with the program, and he apparently had very serious problems with it, then I think there's a very serious discrepency between Bush's description of the program and the reality of it.

Another quote from the same interview is also noteworthy:

"The fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the United States," he said. "There's an enemy out there."

There's a bit of a differerence between blowing the whistle on an illegal program that violates the Fourth Amendment and plays hob with the definition of the President's authority as a Commander-in-Chief and between spilling secrets that are of practical use to an enemy. Obviously, the bad guys are going to assume that they're under constant attempts at survelliance. They're not going to presume anything about how American laws protect them.

Bush Administration outdoes itself again

I've been wondering how to follow up the obviously important story of the NSA having been instructed to spy on American citizens without going through the FISA courts specifically set up for the purpose. The Bush Administration has set up a great screeching and yowling and clamoring about it, but has been completely unable to justify it. Congress, which in 1998, "had" to impeach Bill Clinton for, in their words:

Henry Hyde (R-Ill.): "Mr. Speaker, my colleagues of the people's House, I wish to talk to you about the rule of law. After months of argument, hours of debate, there is no need for further complexity. The question before this House is rather simple. It's not a question of sex. Sexual misconduct and adultery are private acts and are none of Congress's business. "It's not even a question of lying about sex. The matter before the House is a question of lying under oath. This is a public act, not a private act. This is called perjury.

A serious charge, to be sure. Yet, George W. Bush has not only violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But Article 2, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Amazingly, even though the President has violated the privacy of many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of individuals (We don't know yet, as the full list of individuals investigated by the secret means employed by the NSA has yet to be provided to competent and disinterested authorities) and even though his actions go well beyond what the Supreme Court has defined as the "Commander-in-Chief powers" in the case of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (in essence, the Court then decided that President Truman "had violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers" by attempting to do what was rightfully Congress's job) Congress has shown little interest in holding President Bush to account. The nation's news media at the end of 2005 has certainly not adopted the hysterical tone of "Constitutional Crisis" that was a staple of news coverage in 1998.

Was the President justified in "making the call" to follow a different set of procedures? The Attorney General suggests "Yes":

ALBERTO GONZALES: We have to remember that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was created in 1978, and technologies have changed dramatically. [Snarky comment here]

My problem with this justification of course, is that THAT'S NOT THE PRESIDENT'S CALL TO MAKE!!! The President has absolutely NO authority to decide on his own that current wire-tapping laws are inadequate to deal with the threat posed by the "War on Terror". The President may bring his case to Congress and have a member of Congress submit a bill to make a revised wire-tapping law which would take his concerns into account. He has ZERO authority to decide unilaterally, on his own authority, that the wire-tapping laws need to be chucked in favor of a broader rule.

In any event, the Bush Administration has, once again, outdone itself. Completely ignoring the underlying crime (i.e. the unlawful surveillance of an unknown number of American citizens) and ignoring the fact that the leak of this information was known to the Bush Administration since BEFORE the 2004 Election:

The New York Times was the first to report the story on December 16th and then officials confirmed its existence to CNN and other organizations.

"The Justice Department has opened an investigation of the unauthorized disclosure of classified information related to the NSA," a Justice Department official told CNN. [emphasis added]

The Administration did not investigate the leak when it occurred, that investigation is only now occurring. The Administration has no interest in the underlying crime, only in who spilled the beans. Thank Heavens, various people in authority are taking this latest move seriously!!!

Latest justifications

Here's an interesting exchange:

QUESTION: I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a president during wartime.

And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we're going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?

BUSH: First of all, I disagree with your assertion of unchecked power.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Hold on for a second, please.

There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters.

There is oversight. We're talking to Congress all the time.

And on this program, to suggest there's unchecked power is not listening to what I'm telling you. I'm telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times.

This is an awesome responsibility, to make decisions on behalf of the American people. And I understand that. And we'll continue to work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, to constantly monitor a program such as the one I described to you, to make sure that we're protecting the civil liberties of the United States.

To say "unchecked power" basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject.

Well, to say that people are held back from doing what they please by an oath they took earlier is to say that they take their responsbilities very seriously and that they aren't re-interpreting their limitations out of existence and not thinking up ways to get away with doing what they planned to do all along. Unfortunately, the history of presidents and senators and governors, etc., since the founding of our republic and of different rulers stretching back into antiquity does not give us any comfort as to how well rulers can be expected to behave when there's no one there to keep an eye on them. Bush isn't disputing the history of American presidents for the last 30 years, he's disputing the history of rulers since the dawn of recorded history.

"We're talking to Congress all the time." is a very nice-sounding, comforting sound bite until one reads what Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, has to say about his "notification":

I personally received a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years after the President said this program began.

The Administration briefers did not seek my advice or consent about the program, and based on what I have heard publicly since, key details about the program apparently were not provided to me.

Under current Administration briefing guidelines, members of Congress are informed after decisions are made, have virtually no ability to either approve or reject a program, and are prohibited from discussing these types of programs with nearly all of their fellow members and all of their staff.

So, yeah, sure, a very few Senators got briefed, but if they weren't permitted to tell any of their constituents or even their fellow Senators or Congresspeople, what the heck kind of check or balance does that constitute? Bush's people apparently didn't even tell Senator Reid the full story.

So no, I don't think the actions that Bush describes amount to "oversight" in any meaningful sense. I completely agree that his actions constitute "unchecked power" and that yes indeed, he acted as a dictator.