An Existential Struggle

An Existential Struggle
Ted Koppel on the tensions between the need to combat terror and the desire to preserve civil liberties. Plus, his views on the new evening news anchors.
By Brian Braiker
Newsweek

Aug. 22, 2006 - Last week a federal judge in Detroit ordered a halt to the National Security Agency’s program of warrantless domestic wiretapping, declaring it unconstitutional. The ruling was a setback for the Bush administration, which defended the program as an essential tool in its “war against terror.” The decision also illustrates the tension that has mounted in the five years since September 11, 2001, between fighting terror and preserving civil liberties. It is a tension that newsman Ted Koppel, the former “Nightline” anchor, explores at length in “The Price of Security,” an upcoming documentary on the Discovery Channel that commemorates the fifth anniversary of 9/11.

Over the course of three hours, Koppel describes the genuine security threat facing the United States. But he cautions that in the course of addressing that threat, the Bush administration has been undermining some of the freedoms on which the country was founded. “The executive branch,” he tells NEWSWEEK’s Brian Braiker in a recent interview, “has taken unto itself certain rights and privileges and powers that it probably should not have without some judicial or legislative oversight.” Koppel also discusses why he’s addressing this topic on a cable channel as opposed to his former network, ABC, and offers his take on the new crop of evening news anchors. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: These tensions are certainly not new. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. World War I saw the abuse of the Espionage and Sedition Acts.
Ted Koppel: Exactly. The difference is that—I don’t know if you’re familiar with the term much in vogue at the Pentagon these days—they refer to this now as the “long war,” by which they mean it is a war without end. We can expect to be in this war for a generation or more to come.

So this tension, then, between civil liberties and fighting this long war is not going to go away any time soon.
That’s correct. Now the question is whether you accept the fundamental premise of the Bush administration, which is that we are in an existential struggle—that is an actual term that they have used. The Bush administration has this nightmare, and it’s a legitimate nightmare, not that there will be another 9/11 but that there could be a 9/11 with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. That would totally undermine almost everything we’ve come to believe in in this country. It could change America in ways we couldn’t even begin to envision.

The Cold War, which was won, was an existential war.
Exactly. I’ve now done about seven or eight interviews and you’ll be happy to learn no one has been smart enough to make that analogy. It’s a really interesting analogy because during the McCarthy era, a certain number of constitutional rights were violated precisely because everything was justifiable in the interests of fighting communism. The notion that we are locked in that kind of a struggle has created in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 a certain psychology. [Democratic Vermont Sen.] Pat Leahy, the then-chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, told me that when the Patriot Act was being proposed, a ranking member of the opposition at one point said, “Let’s just sign it.” Leahy said to him, “but they haven’t finished writing it.” His Republican counterpart said, “That’s all right. The White House fill in the details.” That was the mindset.

So fast-forward five years, what’s the mindset now?
You fast-forward five years and what you see is that there’s been—as there often is in this country—a pendulum effect. The pendulum has swung from concerns that were almost exclusively focused on security five years ago, where people were asking, “Why is it the FBI wasn’t talking to the CIA? And why is it that you didn’t connect the dots? And why is it that you haven’t been bugging any phones?” Over the course of these past five years, people have begun to change their focus and some people now are saying “I didn’t realize you were sending people over to [secret detention center] ‘black sites.’ And I didn’t know that you’d be bugging my phone. I’m not sure I like that.”

Are you worried that we’re over-concerned with privacy and constitutional liberties now?
No. I’m really worried that policy not be made at the end of a pendulum, that in fact we have a national debate about where we want to be. I interviewed Alberto Mora [former general counsel to the United States Navy], who said something very interesting. He said, “If I thought that we had hold of a terrorist who knew about plans to set off a nuclear device in an American city, I might torture that person. But I would want to do that in the knowledge that I would then be held to account for what I’ve done and that there were laws prohibiting that kind of action.” He said, “What I object to is that they were trying to rewrite the law in such a way that people would be relieved of that responsibility.”

Isn’t that splitting hairs?
No, I don’t think so.

But he says he would commit torture anyway.
Yeah, but the difference [is] between knowing that you might spend five years in prison for torturing someone and the long slippery slope that begins if an interrogator knows that he has already been excused of any legal responsibility. I think there’s a huge difference. In one case, you know there’s a price to be paid and you would only do it in the most extreme circumstances and in the other case, the rules under which you do it become more and more relaxed until [torture] just becomes ubiquitous.

You said that you don’t want policy to be made at the end of a pendulum. But this is an election year and the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Is the rhetoric likely to cool off any time soon?
The notion that political rhetoric has an unsavory impact on good policy being made is real, but what else is new? There needs to be a period of A) national debate and B) debate in Congress. Let’s come to terms with the notion that we’re going to be confronting these kinds of tensions and pressures for the next 20 or 30 years. We need to look in a clear-eyed fashion at how much liberty we can afford. And how much security we can afford.

The recent airline plot was undone in Britain. The United Kingdom has less-restrictive surveillance laws, a domestic intelligence agency, almost no rules against watching and tracking Muslims in mosques, and no First Amendment. Could those be ingredients for a more effective fight against terror?
They could be, but you’re only mentioning half of the British equation. The other half is that at some point or another they either have to be released or charges have to be brought against them. Those charges will be adjudicated in a court of law. If they have been mistreated in any way, then whatever confessions they made would be thrown out of court. The fact of the matter is that Jose Padilla was an American citizen, arrested in the United States, sent to a Navy brig and interrogated there for three months without access to a lawyer. That’s not acceptable.

There’s also speculation that eavesdropping by U.S. officials played a roll in thwarting the alleged plot.
And I think it is absolutely appropriate that we debate that.

We’re not hearing a lot of discussion about these issues in the mainstream press. You’re on the Discovery Channel, Dan Rather will be on HDNet. Is cable where people have to go now if they want serious television journalism?
There is a lingering perception of what broadcast journalism is or was in terms of its reach. “Nightline” began in 1980. “Nightline” and “The Tonight Show” and whatever was on CBS back then, among the three of us we had 70 percent of the audience. When I left “Nightline” almost a year ago, “Nightline” and the [David] Letterman show and the “Tonight Show” had 28 percent. Fact of the matter is, when “The Price of Security” goes on Sept 10, I’ll be very happy if we get a couple million viewers. That’s significantly less than we would get if we were on at eight o’clock on ABC. But no such program is going to get on the air at eight o’clock on ABC.

Why not?
Because it will not be perceived as reaching the right demographic.

What’s your take on the new crop of anchors?
Charlie [Gibson] I watch all the time. He’s terrific. I’m an old fart and Charlie’s an old-fashioned kind of news guy. I think Brian Williams has been a very pleasant surprise. I think he’s doing extremely well and I think he’s just going to keep on getting better and better. And Katie [Couric] is in a really excruciatingly difficult position because I don’t know how she comes out of it being perceived as a winner. If she’s No. 1 at the end of the first week, all you guys are going to say, “Yeah, well that was the first week. Let’s see how she does in three months.” And if she’s only No. 2 at the end of the first week or first month, you’ll say, “15 million bucks and she’s only No. 2!”

The networks are experimenting with broadcasting their evening news on the Web. Your thoughts?
The single message that has survived throughout the millennia, and has as much impact today as it did at the time it was delivered, was allegedly carved into two stone tablets by the finger of God. Lousy medium, great message. I sometimes think we place so much value on the medium that we ignore the importance of the message. Media doesn’t survive. Messages do.

Read More...

Summary only...

New RNC Web Ad Blurs History: Another video on homeland security twists Democrats' words and exaggerates "the Republican record."

factcheck.org
New RNC Web Ad Blurs History

Another video on homeland security twists Democrats' words and exaggerates "the Republican record."

Summary

The Republican National Committee's latest Internet ad says "the facts speak for themselves," but it twists a few of them.

It rewrites history when it claims Republicans "created the Department of Homeland Security," which the White House actually resisted for nearly nine months before giving in to bipartisan pressure. It gives Republicans credit for a law reorganizing intelligence agencies, which actually passed the House with more Democratic votes than Republican.

The video twists the words of prominent Democrats when it says they are "against terrorist surveillance" and "against terrorist interrogation," when what they are actually saying in the ad is that they are against illegal eavesdropping and against abusing prisoners.

It says Democrats are "against the Patriot Act," and many are, but the fact is most Democratic senators voted for reauthorizing it earlier this year after demanding and getting some civil-rights protections.

Analysis

This ad first appeared on the RNC home page Aug. 18. It uses lines of attack we expect to see repeated frequently between now and election day. It says "terrorists are watching" what Democrats say, then contrasts that with the "Republican record since 9/11."

RNC Wed Ad:
"Safer"
(On Screen: Democrats say they want to talk about National Security and the war on terror. While terrorists are watching.)
Dean: We need a real tough fight on terror, but we need to be tough and smart; not just talk tough.
( On Screen: What are Democrats going to talk about? Their Record?)
Reid: We killed the Patriot Act.
( On Screen: Against The Patriot Act)
Biden: This administration's biggest problem in my view is took its eye off the ball because it focused on national missile defense.
( On Screen: Against Missile Defense)
Lamont: I look at the illegal wiretaps. I thought that was a time that Democrats should have stood up and held the president accountable. I think we should have said that was wrong. I think we should have had hearings.
( On Screen: Against Terrorist Surveillance)
Durbin: If I read this to you and didn't tell you it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control.
( On Screen: Against Terrorist Interrogation)
Kerry: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.
(On Screen: Against Funding for our Troops)
Murtha: We need to redeploy and let the Iraqis handle this themselves.
(On Screen: The Facts?
The Republicans record since 9/11
Passed the Patriot Act
Created the Homeland Security Department
Strengthened and Reformed America's Intelligence Agencies
Increased Homeland Security Funding by More than 300 Percent Over the Clinton Administration
Doubling the Size of America's Border Patrol and Increased Border Security Funding by 66 Percent Over the Clinton Administration

Fighting Terrorists Where They Recruit, Train and Plot ... So We Don't have to Fight them here
No Attacks on American Soil
Democrats can talk about the war on terror, but the facts speak for themselves
A stronger America, A safer America)

Rewriting History I:
Department of Homeland Security

The ad claims Republicans "created the Department of Homeland Security." In fact, as we noted before, the Bush administration spent nearly nine months in 2001 and 2002 rejecting calls for the cabinet-level department.

The President created a White House Office of Homeland Security in October 2001, headed by an assistant to the President but with no direct management authority over security agencies. Soon after, a Democrat, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, introduced one of the first bills calling for a full, cabinet-level department. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said on March 20, 2002 that a Cabinet-level agency was not needed.

Ari Fleischer: So creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is, creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything . The White House needs a coordinator to work with the agencies, wherever they are.

Rewriting History II:
Intelligence Re-organization

The ad also claims that Republicans "Strengthened and Reformed America's Intelligence Agencies," referring to legislation that actually came through a broadly bipartisan effort.

The National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 passed the Senate 89 to 2, with one Democrat and one Republican voting against. It passed the House by a vote of 336 to 75, and most of those who voted for it were Democrats while most of those opposing it were Republicans. President Bush acknowledged the bipartisan nature of the bill when he signed it Dec. 17, 2004 by including both Sen. Lieberman and Democratic Rep. Jane Harman of California among those he credited, as well as Democratic former congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana, the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission. That commission, also bipartisan, and also initially resisted by the White House, had urged the reorganization.

Twisting Words I:
"Against Terrorist Surveillance"

The ad shows Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont saying "I look at the illegal wiretaps. . . . I think we should have said that was wrong." Then it superimposes the words "Against Terrorist Surveillance."

That mischaracterizes what Lamont actually said. The words are from Lamont's July 7 debate with Sen. Lieberman. Even in the clip shown in the RNC ad Lamont didn't say he was against surveillance, only against the way President Bush ordered National Security Council eavesdropping without judicial orders. That's made clearer in the full transcript , which shows that Lamont prefaced the snippet we see here by saying "We have a President who is acting as if he is above the law right now."

Whether Bush's NSA program is legal, as the White House says, or not, as US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled last week, is a matter still being litigated. But the fact is that it was illegality to which Lamont objected, not surveillance.

Twisting Words II:
"Against Terrorist Interrogation"

The ad shows Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois denouncing alleged mistreatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, and then superimposes the words "Against Terrorist Interrogation." But Durbin wasn't objecting to interrogation. Durbin actually was objecting to such things as keeping prisoners chained up in their own excrement, as described by an appalled FBI official who had reported witnessing that and other abuses.

Durbin is shown on the Senate floor August 2, 2004, holding a recently released email from a FBI official (whose name had been redacted) summarizing what the official witnessed:

FBI E-mail: On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been there for 18 to 24 hours or more.

The official also described seeing a prisoner nearly lying unconscious in a cell in which air conditioning had been turned off and the temperature was well over 100 degrees, next to a pile of the prisoner's own hair, adding, "He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night."

Unless the RNC means to endorse such treatment of prisoners as essential to "interrogation" it is mischaracterizing what Durbin said.

A Half-Truth:
Against the Patriot Act

The ad says in print that Democrats are "Against the Patriot Act," which is only partly true. Most Democrats in the House did indeed oppose the Patriot Act in its present form, but not the large majority of those in the Senate. It is true that 156 House Democrats opposed renewing the Patriot Act in the form it went through the House on July 21, 2005. And it is also true that nearly 2/3rds of House Democrats also voted against the addition of some civil-rights measures on March 7, 2006 that were part of a compromise allowing passage in the Senate. Mostly the Democrats said the measures didn't go far enough, so based on the latter vote we judge it is fair to say that at least 124 House Democrats are against the act in its present form, and that 66 support it.

But it's a different story in the Senate, where only 9 Democrats and Independent Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont voted against final passage of the Patriot Act renewal, while 34 Democrats voted in favor.

For the record, the measures that were added included one allowing recipients of a law-enforcement request for business records to challenge a gag order preventing them from talking about it. Another removed a requirement that recipients of national security letters, which are like subpoenas but do not require court approval, disclose the name of any attorney they consult or intend to consult. Another ensures that libraries operating in traditional roles and not as Internet service providers are not subject to national security letters

Reid's Misleading Boast

Incidentally, one of those voting for Patriot Act renewal was Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who is shown in the ad boasting, "We killed the Patriot Act." Reid did say that but, obviously, he chose his words poorly. In fact, Democrats hadn't killed the act; they had only blocked it with a filibuster while demanding some additional civil-rights protections, some of which Republicans later agreed to add. Reid's words are grossly misleading, but that's Reid's fault and not the RNC's. This clip has become a staple of Republican advertising and we suspect we haven't seen the last of it.

-by Brooks Jackson, with Justin Bank, James Ficaro and Emi Kolawole


Sources

“Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer,” Transcript. 19 Mar. 2002.

“President Bush signs Homeland Security Act,” Transcript. 25 Nov. 2002.

“President Establishes Office of Homeland Security,” The White House. 8 Oct. 2002.

Sandler, Michael. "Deal Clears Way for Anti-Terrorism Law," CQ Weekly. 10 Mar 2006.

U.S. Senate, 108th Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Vote No. 216.

U.S. House, 108th Congress, 2nd Session. House Vote No. 544.

"Liberman, Lamont Spar in Conn. Primary Debate," Transcript. 7 July 2006.

"President Signs Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act," Transcript. 17 Dec. 2004.

Read More...

Summary only...

Dangerous Disgrace: The FBI’s continued technological incompetence is putting America at risk

Dangerous Disgrace
The FBI’s continued technological incompetence is putting America at risk.
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek

Aug. 21, 2006 - Everyone’s got an Exhibit A of the mind-bending, staggering and almost incomprehensible incompetence of the Bush Era. Iraq. Katrina. Medicare. But let’s add one more. Should, God forbid, we be hit again by terrorists, historians will point an unforgiving finger at the computers of the FBI.

As The Washington Post reported on August 18, five years after 9/11 the FBI’s computer system is still not fixed. How can this be? It’s an ugly story of poor management, contractor abuse and an agency that cannot electronically connect the dots—even though nearly everyone agreed in 2001 that developing that ability should be among the top priorities for the United States. It’s as if after Pearl Harbor President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered that ships and aircraft be built to fight the Japanese, only to discover that five years later the government had built none.

The blame begins with Louis Freeh, who smugly headed the FBI for eight years under President Bill Clinton. Although he claims to have tried to upgrade the bureau’s computers in 1995, he failed miserably. In 2001, when any large business in the world that wanted to make money was long since fully automated—and when most American six-year-olds could download Little League snapshots—the FBI remained in the horse-and-buggy era. Its rusty mainframes used text-only “green screens” and could not scan reports or transmit photographs. Agents had no PCs and were forced to share e-mail accounts. Because it took 12 steps to upload a single document, most agents gave up and did everything the old-fashioned way—on paper.

Remember the period right after 9/11? I was hardly the only one writing about computers at the FBI. The new FBI director, Robert Mueller, insisted he was focused on the task at hand. He spent $170 million on a plan called “Trilogy” that was meant to solve the Bureau’s technology problems.

From the start, it was a rip-off. The contractor, Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), assigned 200 people to a program that, according to a former employer, could easily have been handled by a dozen. Instead of adapting off-the-shelf software, which any computer consultant with half a brain (make that any person with half a brain) knows is the only way to go, the company decided to design a software system from scratch. Surprise! It didn’t work. If you’ve read even one of the 500,000 articles in the popular press about software development, it’s obvious that the first try never works.

The consultants would, naturally, have us believe that the FBI’s requirements were so complex and security-related that they needed their own system. This is a crock. Many businesses are larger and more complex than the FBI and they, too, have major security considerations. But this is how SAIC ballooned its contract from $14 million annually to $170 million. Then, when it had clearly failed, the contractor blamed the supervisors within the FBI. Natch.

By the time the National Research Council investigated the FBI’s progress in May 2004, the results were pathetic. The review team found that three years after 9/11, the system still didn’t allow agents to take their cases into the field on laptops. The program did not have bookmarking or archiving features that are standard in the least expensive commercial software. And the system could not properly sort data. Worst of all, the researchers found that the whole system could easily crash and the FBI had no backup plan. “A bunch of us were planning on committing a crime spree the day they switched over,” a computer science professor who was on the review team told the Post.

After pulling the plug on Trilogy in January, 2005, the FBI started over with a different contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp. Its new system, called Sentinel, is said to be on budget and schedule, but at $305 million dollars it is many times more expensive than what a similar project would cost in the private sector. We’re told this system will work some day. Keep your finger crossed.

There’s enough blame to go around. Why did the Republican Congress, which has abdicated oversight, settle for asking a few pointed questions, then call it a day when told to be patient? Why didn’t the White House ride herd on the computer upgrade until it was successfully completed? Why wasn’t Mueller fired?

The sad truth is that accountability in Washington is dead. We won’t get it back until we throw out those responsible. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

Read More...

Summary only...

Marines face involuntary recalls

Reuters
Marines face involuntary recalls
By Kristin Roberts

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Marine Corps will start ordering what could be thousands of inactive service members to return to duty in the coming months to counter a steady decline in the number of such troops who volunteer, the service said on Tuesday.

Col. Guy Stratton, head of the Marine Corps' manpower mobilization plans, said the service is short some 1,200 volunteers over the next 18 months to fill roles in the war on terrorism. The total shortfall fluctuates regularly, he said.

Stratton said President George W. Bush authorized the Marine Corps to issue involuntary recall orders to members of the Individual Ready Reserve, part of the non-active force. It will be the Marine Corps' first involuntary recall since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The authorization limits the number of Marines who can be activated involuntarily to no more 2,500 at any one time, out of a pool of about 35,000, Stratton said. The length of each activated service member's duty is capped at 24 months but will likely last 12 to 18 months.

Under a general contract, a Marine serves four years on active duty and four in reserve. While on reserve, Marines may volunteer to return to active duty to fill needed roles.

But the number of Marines volunteering outside their active-duty service requirement has been steadily declining for two years, according to Stratton, who said could not offer an explanation.

The Marine Corps' authority to involuntarily recall Marines for jobs in the "Global War on Terror" -- a war whose parameters remain largely undefined -- has no expiration date.

"The authority is until GWOT is over with," Stratton said. "Until we're told to do otherwise, we'll use it."

The Marine Corps' move comes almost five years after the September 11 attacks that led the United States to declare a war on global terrorism and more than three years after the Iraq war began.

Many Marines have performed three tours of duty in Iraq since March 2003. While the U.S. Army has provided most of the ground forces fighting an insurgency there, the Marines have carried a heavy load and been deployed in one of the most dangerous parts of Iraq, Anbar province.

Beyond Iraq, which the Bush administration considers part of the war on terrorism, the broader war is expected to last many years, defense officials regularly say.

The Marines and Army have been meeting monthly recruiting goals. But some analysts have questioned the military's ability to sustain long-term operations with its all-volunteer force.

Involuntary recalls and other steps taken to stop the loss of personnel have been criticized by some as a back-door conscription and a threat to the volunteer nature of the force.

"What's really worrisome about involuntary recalls is they put even more of the burden on the handful of people who voluntarily join the military, and thus undermine the long-term viability of the whole volunteer force," said Lexington Institute defense analyst Loren Thompson.

"In some ways this is worse than a back-door draft because it penalizes the handful of people who had the inclination and the courage to volunteer in the first place," he said.

Stratton, however, said the Marines' involuntary recall was not a back-door draft and that Marines on nonactive status should always expect that they may be called when needed.

Read More...

Summary only...

Most in US see no tie between Iraq, terror war

Reuters
Most in US see no tie between Iraq, terror war: poll

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A majority of Americans no longer see a link between the war in Iraq and Washington's broader anti-terrorism efforts despite President George W. Bush's insistence the two are intertwined, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released on Tuesday.

Fifty-one percent of those surveyed said the war in Iraq was separate from the U.S. government's war on terrorism. The findings were a considerable shift from polls taken in 2002 and early 2003, when a majority considered the two to be linked, The New York Times said.

As recently as June, opinion was evenly split, with 41 percent on both sides of the divide. Now only 32 percent considered Iraq to be a major part of the fight against terrorism, the newspaper said.

According to the poll, 46 percent said the Bush administration had concentrated too heavily on Iraq and not enough on terrorists elsewhere. Fifty-three percent said going to war in the first place was a mistake, up from 48 percent in July, The New York Times said.

Bush's approval ratings remained unchanged at 36 percent. His popularity has been damaged by the unpopular war in Iraq, in which the U.S. military death toll is 2,610.

As recently as Monday, Bush defended the invasion of Iraq as crucial to preventing more domestic terror attacks.

"If you believe that the job of the federal government is to secure this country, it's really important for you to understand that success in Iraq is part of securing the country," Bush said during a news conference.

The unpopularity of the Iraq war has many Republicans nervous about the party's chances in the November midterm elections in which Democrats are seeking to retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.

The Times/CBS News poll of 1,206 adults was conducted Thursday through Monday and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Osama Card: Expect the Republicans to use the specter of the terror leader to frighten voters ahead of the elections.

The Osama Card
Expect the Republicans to use the specter of the terror leader to frighten voters ahead of the elections.
By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek

Aug. 18, 2006 - It will soon be five years since the 9/11 attacks thrust America into a state of perpetual anxiety, and the man who inspired and masterminded the carnage that awful day remains at large. He’s almost certainly in Pakistan, way up on the northern border, almost to China, and with the November elections approaching, the name of Osama bin Laden will once again surface as a powerful symbol of who’s with us and who’s against us.

A Republican Senate hopeful in New York is already linking Hillary Clinton to Osama in a television ad that attacks Clinton for voting against the Patriot Act and speaking out against the administration’s unauthorized wiretapping. Former Yonkers mayor John Spencer has no chance of unseating the New York senator, but for Democrats, Osama is the wild card. They remember how he surfaced in a video the weekend before the ’04 presidential election, reminding the country of 9/11 and helping turn fearful voters toward President Bush, who was seen as the tougher of the two candidates.

Now Democrats have a good chance of winning back one or both houses of Congress, and they’re wondering whether this election’s October surprise could be capturing Osama. Peter Bergen, one of the few Western journalists to interview the terrorist leader, spoke at a panel in Washington this week after a preview screening of a new CNN documentary, “In the Footsteps of Bin Laden.” Bergen said the administration has a pretty good idea where bin Laden is—based in part on the vegetation that appears in his video. Bergen also wondered why, with all the money the administration is spending, it isn’t staking out the offices of the Al-Jazeera offices where the tapes are dropped off for more clues to Osama’s whereabouts.

Bush once vowed to capture bin Laden dead or alive. Now he and Karl Rove only haul him out when he’s politically useful.

Bin Laden has been eclipsed and overtaken by Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah and the new voice of Arab anger. Bergen was asked, “If Osama is eliminated, what then?” He replied that “Binladenism” is the worry now, and it’s far more dangerous than the man himself. It’s unlikely that bin Laden would be taken alive. He has said repeatedly, “Better a grave than an American prison.” Martyrdom is such a powerful force in the Arab world that death would only enhance bin Laden’s mythical status.

The CNN documentary, with Christiane Amanpour reporting and narrating, attempts to answer the question of why bin Laden, a shy, polite boy from a wealthy Saudi family, became the leader of radical Islam. He didn’t always despise the West. Interviews with 21 people who knew him, from his English teacher to a brother-in-law, chart the transformation of a religious ascetic who spurned material goods into a warrior hardened by battle with global ambitions. The year 1979 was crucial: The ayatollahs took over Iran, signaling the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. The Saudi royal family sent troops to quell an Islamic uprising at a holy site, blasphemy in Osama’s eyes. And the Soviet Union, godless communists, invaded Afghanistan, a Muslim country.

The documentary pulls together the threads of Osama’s early life. His father rose from a common laborer to head one of the biggest construction companies in the Middle East. The bin Laden name is everywhere. The senior bin Laden had 20 wives and more than 50 children. Osama had little contact with his father, who died when he was 10. His mother, a Syrian, kept him apart from the family, and he did not attend school in the West like all of his brothers. One friend recalls Osama as a young man living in a bare basement apartment, sleeping on the floor and spurning air conditioning. Yet when the first of Osama’s more than 20 children had a medical problem, he traveled to the West, either the United States or Britain, it’s not certain, to have the boy treated. He would later recall how people stared at him in the airport because he wore traditional Arab dress—“like in a zoo,” he said.

It may surprise viewers to learn that the 9/11 attacks were criticized by Al Qaeda “insiders” who saw them as a strategic and tactical mistake. The American retaliation cost Al Qaeda its base in Afghanistan and ousted its protector, the Taliban. Osama’s son declared the attacks a disaster and left his father’s enterprise in Afghanistan, declaring in Bergen’s colloquialism, that Al Qaeda now had an 800-pound gorilla after it. Bin Laden was forced into hiding in the Tora Bora Mountains, where American forces had an opportunity to capture him. They could hear him on his radio apologizing to his followers for having led them into this trap. But there were more journalists than soldiers on the battlefield, a former CIA agent observes in the documentary, and Osama, looking frail and much older than his 44 years, escaped. The Qaeda leader has a $25 million bounty on his head, but the war against terrorism is not about money, it’s about motivation—theirs and ours.

Read More...

Summary only...

Americans Link Hurricane Katrina and Heat Wave to Global Warming

zogby.com
Americans Link Hurricane Katrina and Heat Wave to Global Warming

Majorities of likely voters in both political parties favor requirements on industries to limit "greenhouse" emissions

As Americans recover from this summer’s heat wave and mark the first anniversary next week of Hurricane Katrina , an overwhelming majority say they are more convinced that global warming is happening than they were two years ago, and they are also connecting intense weather events like hurricane Katrina and heat waves to global warming, according to a new Zogby America telephone poll.

The survey, sponsored by the National Wildlife Federation, was conducted Aug. 11–16, and included 1,018 respondents. It carries a margin of error of +/– 3.1 percentage points.

Nearly three of every four – 74% – are more convinced today that global warming is a reality than they were two years ago, the survey shows. Dramatically, it is a sentiment shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and political independents. While many more Democrats believe in global warming (87%), 56% of Republicans concur. Among independents, 82% think we are experiencing the effects of global warming. These numbers indicate a shift in the momentum of global warming believers.

Asked what influence global warming has had on specific weather events, 65% said they believe it had an influence on this summer’s heat wave that baked the U.S., and 68% said they think it was a factor in development of more intense hurricanes like Katrina. Similar numbers are seen for other weather phenomenon including droughts, wildfires and snowfall.

Pollster John Zogby: “While the findings in this survey are not proof that intense weather events are linked to global warming, it is clear that Americans are making that connection. It is also clear that there is a desire among Americans across the political spectrum to see steps taken to reduce greenhouse gases.”

The survey also indicated there is strong support for measures to require major industries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to improve the environment without harming the economy – 72% of likely voters agreed such measures should be taken. That sentiment was consistent across a wide age spectrum of respondents, but there was some split along party lines. Among Democrats, 81% agreed major industries should be required to cut greenhouse gas emissions, while 61% of Republicans agreed. Among independents, 73% said major industries should be required to decrease certain emissions.

###

For a detailed methodological statement on this poll, please visit:

http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1134

Link to report: http://www.zogby.com/wildlife/NWFfinalreport8-17-06.htm

Read More...

Summary only...

When Iraq Vets Collide

Huffington Post
John Amato
When Iraq Vets Collide

Tonight on Hardball we got a rare glimpse of what a debate between a Republican Iraq War Vet and a Democratic Iraq War Vet looks like. Or should I say the Republican Iraq War Vet, at least as far as candidates for Congress go.

It was Republican Van Taylor, who's running against Democrat Chet Edwards in TX-17.
He's one of a tiny number of challengers the NRCC says they're supporting, and they're already going low against Edwards -- you'll hear Taylor accuse Edwards of not "supporting the troops" even though Edwards is beloved by the military community for work on national veterans issues and his work with the local vets community on things like PTSD. It's a big part of why he survived Tom DeLay's redistricting garbage.

Anyway, you'll see in this clip why so many Iraq vets jumped into politics as Democrats this time around while Van Taylor is the lone Iraq vet running for Congress as a Republican. The contrast between Taylor's regurgitated Ken Mehlman talking points and Paul Hackett's heartfelt, passionate outrage is just shocking. And you'll see the same kind of sincerity from Tammy Duckworth and Patrick Murphy on our side. If you've never seen Paul Hackett before, you're in for a real treat and will soon realize why he instantaneously gained so much respect in the blogosphere.

Anyway, the video of the debate is great, check it out.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Club for Growth launches misleading attacks at Sen. Chafee's record

factcheck.org
Club for Growth: Chafing Chafee's Record
The Club for Growth launches misleading attacks at Sen. Chafee's record on taxes and "wasteful" spending.

Summary

The Club for Growth is running a TV ad attacking Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, claiming he voted for wasteful spending projects such as a "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska. In fact, Chafee didn't vote specifically for any of the items mentioned. All were relatively tiny line items in massive spending bills that easily passed the Senate.

The ad also says "Chafee voted for higher income, Social Security and gasoline taxes." But mostly that refers to votes Chafee cast against cutting taxes, not for raising them.


Analysis

On Aug. 17 the Club for Growth, a political action committee advocating low taxes and "pro-growth economic policies," released a 30-second ad it calls "Too Taxing," which is running statewide in Rhode Island. The ad targets Chafee for what it calls a"wide world of wasteful spending." The Club for Growth has publicly endorsed Chafee's more conservative challenger in the state's Sept. 12 Republican primary, Steve Laffey.

Club for Growth ad "Too Taxing"

Announcer: Lincoln Chafee's Wide World of Wasteful Spending. Chafee voted to spend $200 million on the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska,
(On Screen: 2005 Senate Roll Call Vote 220)
Announcer: $50 million for an indoor rain forest in Iowa,
(On Screen: 2004 Senate Roll Call Vote 3)
Announcer: and a half million on the Montana Sheep Institute.
(On Screen: 2004 Senate Roll Call Vote 215)
Announcer: Then Chafee voted for higher income, Social Security, and gas taxes.
(On Screen: 2004 Senate Roll Call Vote 130, 2005 Senate Roll Call Vote 74, 2000 Senate Roll Call Vote 183)
Announcer:Over a trillion dollars in higher taxes.
(On Screen: 2001 Senate Roll Call Vote 170)
Announcer: Lincoln Chafee's spending is just too taxing. Club for Growth PAC is responsible for the content of this advertising.

Pork Projects?

The ad criticizes Chafee for voting to fund three projects, the so-called Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere," an indoor rain forest in Iowa, and the Montana Sheep Institute. The Bridge is actually two bridges; one designed to connect Ketchikan, AK to sparsely populated Gravina Island and another to connect the Port of Anchorage to the little-used Port McKenzie. While Chafee did vote for the final Conference Reports that included all of these projects, what the ad fails to mention is that they were part of massive spending and appropriations bills, not independent legislative actions. Specifically:

•T he Alaskan bridge was part of the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, & Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005" which authorized funding for U.S. highways through 2009. It was an 800-page bill that approved $286.4 billion in spending. The $200-million bridge made up only 0.07 per cent of that bill – or about seven pennies for every one hundred dollars spent.

• The $50 million "indoor rain forest" in Iowa comprised only 0.02 per cent of the $328 billion Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

• The $500,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute made up only 0.00013 per cent of the $388 billion Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, which provided funding for the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and Energy amongst others. That's 13 cents out of every $100,000 spent.

A Double Standard?

The Club for Growth seems to be applying a double standard to Chafee's vote on the bill containing the Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere." Of the twelve candidates the Club lists on their website as "recommended," only one is a current member of Congress, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX). And Cuellar voted for the identical Conference Report that the ad attacks Chafee for supporting. If Chafee's vote constitutes part of a "wide world of wasteful spending" then the same would go for the Club-endorsed Cuellar.

Votes for "Higher" Taxes?

The ad goes on to say that Chafee voted for "higher" income, Social Security, and gasoline taxes. This claim is misleading, and uses deceptive wording that we've discussed before when President Bush used a similar tactic to attack his Democratic rival John Kerry.

Chafee did not vote for an increase in Social Security or gas taxes, he voted against cutting them. And the Club points to only a single instance in which Chafee actually voted to raise the federal income tax, when he was the lone Republican to vote for an amendment to raise the top rate by one percentage point for five years to pay for increased military expenditures in Iraq. Only taxpayers with a taxable income of $319,000 or higher would have been affected.
But the other votes cited by the Club weren't tax increases at all. In 2005, Chafee voted against an amendment that would have repealed a 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits, and in 2000 he voted against an amendment that would have reduced the federal gasoline tax to zero for a period of 150 days.

The ad's final claim is that Chafee voted for "over $1 trillion in higher taxes." That refers to 2001 when he voted against final passage of the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA). This was the first of President Bush's major tax cut initiatives.

Voting to maintain current tax policy is not a vote for increasing taxes. Had the ad said that Chafe voted against cutting taxes rather than for "higher" taxes, it would have been accurate.

-by James Ficaro


Sources

U.S. Senate, 109th Congress, 1st Session. Senate Vote No. 220
U.S. Senate, 108th Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Vote No. 3
"Bush signs highway bill," Journal of Commerce Online, 10 Aug 2005
U.S. Senate, 108th Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Vote No. 215
U.S. House of Representatives, 109th Congress, 1st Session. Vote No. 453
Victoria Parker-Stevens, "Bill includes highway, bridge repairs for city," Carlsbad Current-Argus, 9 Dec 2004
U.S. Senate, 108th Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Vote No. 130
"Sen. Lincoln Hails Passage of Final Appropriations Package," State News Service , 27 Jan 2004.
U.S. Senate, 109th Congress, 1st Session. Senate Vote No. 74
U.S. Senate, 106th Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Vote No. 183
U.S. Senate, 107th Congress, 1st Session. Senate Vote No. 170

Read More...

Summary only...

A Recent AOL Research Project Has Perilous Consequences for Subscribers

findlaw.com
Privacy and Search Engine Data: A Recent AOL Research Project Has Perilous Consequences for Subscribers
By ANITA RAMASASTRY

Some America Online (AOL) Internet service subscribers may be in for a nasty shock. Approximately 658,000 subscribers had their search queries - numbering a reported 20 million - made public for 10 days in early August, when the data, meant to be shared only with search engine researchers, was mistakenly released. And records of the data still remain accessible on the Internet; while AOL removed the data, it had already been mirrored and cached elsewhere.

This is far from an isolated incident: Reportedly, Excite and AltaVista released smaller amounts of their users' search results approximately five or six years ago. Both used anonymous identifiers, as AOL did.

An AOL spokesperson has been quoted as saying, "there was no personally-identifiable data linked to these accounts." And it's true that AOL did not post names in combination with the searches - just numerical IDs. But based on various news reports and blog commentaries, it has become readily apparent that the search data is enough to identify quite a few individuals.

The upshot: If an individual did searches based on, for instance, their own names, neighborhoods, street addresses, and so on, others may be able to find out what other searches the individual did - even if the information revealed is legally private (a search for information related to a confidential medical condition such as AIDS), intensely embarrassing (for example, a search for porn sites), or even evidence of crime (a reported search for tips on how to commit murder).

Accurate inferences from these searches may damage the searcher; so might false inferences (for instance, suppose the "AIDS" searcher did not suffer from AIDS herself).

Two privacy groups, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the World Privacy Forum (WPF) have filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) calling AOL's actions unfair and deceptive trade practices. It is still too early to tell if they will ultimately prevail, but it's very important that an investigation be conducted. As EFF notes, among the other serious injuries the now-public data may wreak, is the possibility of identity theft. And there's no question that the searches can be connected to individuals: In support of its complaint, EFF confidentially submitted a sampling of AOL search queries containing personally identifiable information and search histories that could likely be tied to particular AOL subscribers.

Congress also should examine this recent customer data leak, because once again, consumer data is making the rounds, without a subscriber's consent. There are still no uniform federal standards, under our laws, for dealing with disclosures of individuals' search records - whether solely by a private company, or in response to a government request or subpoena. That situation ought to change. We need to have clear rules as to what is permitted, and what is forbidden.

What AOL Did: Why Anonymous Identifiers Didn't Prevent Matching Searches to Individuals

AOL had posted the data on its recently launched AOL Research site, aimed at database and search engine researchers. The problem: Anyone could access the site, which was apparently not password-protected. (Since then, a lot of dot-connecting has gone on. The New York Times figured out that user "4417749" -- who searched "homes sold in shadow lake subdivision gwinnett county Georgia," and searched the names of several people with the surname "Arnold" - was 62-year-old Georgia resident Thelma Arnold.

Others poring over the data claim to have discovered over 100 Social Security numbers; dozens - perhaps hundreds -- of credit card numbers; and the full names, addresses and birthdates of various subscribers who entered these terms as part of search queries.

The FTC Complaints Filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the World Privacy Forum

Both the EFF and the WPF have asked the FTC to investigate, and possibly sanction, AOL for its unauthorized release of customer search queries. .

The FTC complaints allege that AOL engaged in unfair or deceptive business practices by exposing its subscribers' information without warning them previously that it might do so. Indeed, according to the EFF complaint. AOL claimed in its privacy statement that it took "reasonable and appropriate" measures to protect personal consumer information from public disclosure. Surely such measures ought to have prevented the public posting of private search data!

AOL should be required to notify every customer whose privacy has been jeopardized by the company's handling of this private information. AOL also should adopt policies for the future by which it either does not cache such data, or quickly purges its caches. EFF and WPF have asked the FTC to require changes in AOL's privacy practices, and these requests, too, are a good idea.

Granted, researchers involved with database and search engine research may have valid reasons to seek such data. But, as EFF has noted, that there may be ways such research can be done without making individuals' search terms public. University researchers, too, could be asked to abide by AOL's privacy policy and other state privacy laws. And AOL could also seek user consent before sharing such data with researchers or others; of AOL's millions of users, enough might have consented to the research to allow a substantial database to be created.

Consequences: It's Time for Clear Laws, with Strong Remedies, Regarding Search Disclosures, Whether or Not at the Government's Behest

While AOL released data to the public of its own accord, there has also been concern, in recent months, about ISPs' turning over search data to government officials in response to subpoenas.

In March, a federal judge rejected efforts by the Department of Justice to use subpoenas to Google to gain access to Google users' search logs. The court, however, held that the Justice Department could have limited access, instead, to Google's index of Web site URLs. (Google was the only search engine to fight the Justice Department on this issue, with Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN and AOL handing over their users' search data, rather than litigating the point.)

Hopefully, AOL's violation of its users' privacy will spur Congress to clarify when and how search log information should be protected. As EFF notes, a few states require that consumers be notified in the event of a security breach. In this case, it is unclear whether such laws would apply to the AOL search data scenario - but if they don't, they ought to. And in any case, federal-law protection is needed so that all Americans can use the Internet with confidence, and without fear their privacy will be invaded.

Anita Ramasastry is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle and a Director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce & Technology. She has previously written on business law, cyberlaw, computer data security issues, and other legal issues for this site, which contains an archive of her columns.

Read More...

Summary only...

Plame Considering Suing Armitage

My Way
Plame Considering Suing Armitage
By MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former CIA officer Valerie Plame is considering suing the recent No. 2 State Department official in a case accusing members of the Bush administration of conspiring to leak her identity to the media, Plame's attorney said Tuesday.

Official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage held a one-hour meeting marked "private appointment" with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward on June 13, 2003.

That was the same day Woodward met with a confidential source who spoke to him about Plame, according to a person familiar with information gathered by prosecutors. The person spoke only on condition of anonymity because the material remains sealed.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has investigated whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed Plame's identity as a one-time CIA covert official. Nobody has been charged with the leak but former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been accused of lying to investigators and to a grand jury.

Plame has sued Vice President Dick Cheney, White House aide Karl Rove and Libby, saying they leaked her name to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the administration's march to war with Iraq.

The calendar released to the AP is the first confirmation that Woodward and Armitage met during the key time in the CIA leak case.

Plame attorney Melanie Sloan said she was considering adding Armitage's name to the suit. Based on the calendar entry, Sloan said, "it sure sounds like" he was Woodward's source.

The real question, Sloan said, is whether Armitage revealed Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak, who was the first to get the information into print. If so, she said that doesn't get Libby or others off the hook in the civil case, but it widens the conspiracy.

"Then I think maybe Armitage was in on it," Sloan said. "The question is just what was Armitage's role?"

Neither Woodward nor Armitage would discuss the meeting.

Plame's attorneys plan to seek depositions from the defendants and others, including Armitage, about the leak.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Latest Terrorist Threat -- The Army Corps of Engineers!

Huffington Post
Carl Pope
The Latest Terrorist Threat -- The Army Corps of Engineers!

Alton, IL -- This posting may bring tears to your eyes -- of either laughter or despair, depending on your mood. Jim Bensman, a long-time Sierra Club forest activist, attended a meeting of the Army Corps of Engineers in July and found himself the subject of an FBI Investigation whose real target -- if there were any at all -- should have been the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Here's Jim's Keystone Cops story:

"It all started when I went to a public hearing on the Army Corps of Engineers proposal to build a fish bypass for a dam by me on the Mississippi River.

"The Army gave a PowerPoint presentation. They showed the initial alternatives they considered, including dam removal. When they discussed this alternative, they had a picture of a dam being blown up (as that is how you remove a dam). Then they indicated the alternatives under consideration that did not include dam removal.

"When it came time for public comments, I indicated they should develop the dam removal alternative. I pointed out how the dams cost the tax payers billions of dollars and do all kinds of massive environmental damage.

"I was sitting at home on July 31st when the phone rang, and the caller ID said Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI wanted to know if they could come to my place and talk to me. So I asked what he wanted to talk to me about."

The Agent told Jim that he was being investigated as a terrorist because of his support for blowing up dams.

"I was shocked. How stupid could the FBI be to think a terrorist would go to a public hearing and announce their plan to the Army? ... I asked the FBI why they were wasting their time on something this stupid. He told me they have to investigate everything.... After talking to me for a while, the FBI asked if it was OK for him to come to my place and talk to me if his boss wanted this. I told him I did not know. So he told me he was going to put down that I was not cooperating.

"So I consulted an attorney on what to do. I was advised to send the FBI a copy of the Army's PowerPoint presentation so they could see the Army was talking about blowing up the dams.

"I then talked to the FBI agent again, and he told me the investigation was closed and I am not on any terrorist list.... Finally, he told me it was the Army Corps of Engineers who called him. If true, that explains a lot and I can understand why they would investigate if the Army asks them to."

But why investigate Jim? Why not investigate the Corps of Engineers, whose original proposal to blow up dams Jim was simply supporting? (Yes, yes, I know the real question is "Why investigate when there is manifestly nothing to investigate?")

It's hard to imagine a more telling piece of evidence that the new powers vested in the Justice Department by the Patriot Act are being misused for political purposes -- in this case to harrass an involved citizen who doesn't agree with how the Army manages the nation's waterways. And Jim's story exposes the lie behind the excuse that "resource constraints" are the reason why real threats to our nation's security (like uninspected cargo containers arriving in every American port) are being ignored. Recall that, in Montana, Homeland Security has enough extra manpower to provide armed escort for convoys of bison headed for the slaughterhouse.

It appears that at least one FBI agent can be spared from downstate Illinois for some serious homeland security work. I suggest dispatching him to help the EPA finish the job of testing and cleaning up the areas around the World Trade Center tragedy. Three years ago this week, the EPA's Inspector General released a report that was highly critical of the Agency's performance following the collapse of the World Trade Center and called on it to implement a comprehensive testing and cleanup program for these areas, but nothing has been done. Resource constraints again?

Read More...

Summary only...

Pundits Renounce The President; Among Conservative Voices, Discord

washingtonpost.com
Pundits Renounce The President
Among Conservative Voices, Discord
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer

For 10 minutes, the talk show host grilled his guests about whether "George Bush's mental weakness is damaging America's credibility at home and abroad." For 10 minutes, the caption across the bottom of the television screen read, "IS BUSH AN 'IDIOT'?"

But the host was no liberal media elitist. It was Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman turned MSNBC political pundit. And his answer to the captioned question was hardly "no." While other presidents have been called stupid, Scarborough said: "I think George Bush is in a league by himself. I don't think he has the intellectual depth as these other people."

These have been tough days politically for President Bush, what with his popularity numbers mired in the 30s and Republican candidates distancing themselves as elections near. He can no longer even rely as much on once-friendly voices in the conservative media to stand by his side, as some columnists and television commentators lose faith in his leadership and lose heart in the war in Iraq.

While most conservative media figures have not abandoned Bush, influential opinion-makers increasingly have raised questions, expressed doubts or attacked the president outright, particularly on foreign policy, on which he has long enjoyed their strongest support. In some cases, they have complained that Bush has drifted away from their shared principles; in other cases, they think it is the implementation that has fallen short. In most instances, Iraq figures prominently.

"Conservatives for a long time were in protective mode, wanting to emphasize the progress in Iraq to contrast what they felt was an unfair attack on the war by the Democrats and media and other sources," Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, said in an interview. "But there's more of a sense now that things are on a downward trajectory, and more of a willingness to acknowledge it and pressure the administration to react to it."

Lowry's magazine offers a powerful example. "It is time to say it unequivocally: We are winning in Iraq," Lowry wrote in April 2005, chastising those who disagreed. This month, he published an editorial that concluded that "success in Iraq seems more out of reach than it has at any time since the initial invasion three years ago" and assailed "the administration's on-again-off-again approach to Iraq."

"It is time for the Bush administration to acknowledge that its approach of assuring people that progress is being made and operating on that optimistic basis in Iraq isn't working," the editorial said. Lowry followed up days later in his own column, suggesting that the United States is "losing, or at least not obviously winning, a major war" and asking whether Iraq is "Bush's Vietnam."

Quin Hillyer, executive editor of the American Spectator, cited Lowry's column in his own last week, writing that many are upset "because we seem not to be winning" and urging the White House to take on militia leaders such as Moqtada al-Sadr. Until it does, he said, "there will be no way for the administration to credibly claim that victory in Iraq is achievable, much less imminent."

Bush aides were bothered by a George F. Will column last week mocking neoconservative desires to transform the Middle East: "Foreign policy 'realists' considered Middle East stability the goal. The realists' critics, who regard realism as reprehensibly unambitious, considered stability the problem. That problem has been solved."

The White House responded with a 2,432-word rebuttal -- three times as long as the column -- e-mailed to supporters and journalists. "Mr. Will's kind of 'stability' and 'realism' -- a kind of world-weary belief that nothing can be done and so nothing should be tried -- would eventually lead to death and destruction on a scale that is almost unimaginable," wrote White House strategic initiatives director Peter H. Wehner.

Bush advisers said that they never counted Will or some others now voicing criticism as strong supporters but that the president's political weakness has encouraged soft supporters and quiet skeptics to speak out.

William F. Buckley Jr., the founder of the National Review and an icon of the Ronald Reagan-era conservative movement, caused a stir earlier this year when he wrote that "our mission has failed" in Iraq -- just a few months after Bush hosted a White House tribute to Buckley's 80th birthday and the magazine's 50th anniversary.

Thomas L. Friedman, a New York Times columnist who is not a conservative but has strongly backed the Iraq war, reversed course this month, writing that " 'staying the course' is pointless, and it's time to start thinking about Plan B -- how we might disengage with the least damage possible."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the second-guessing was predictable, given the difficulties in Iraq. "It's hardly unusual in times of war that people get anxious, and that would include people who have supported the president," he said. "The president understands that and is not fazed by it."

Snow said much of the frustration articulated by conservatives stems from a desire to accomplish Bush's ambitions. "The good thing is they all have the same goal: They all want to win the war on terror," he said. "You don't have people quibbling over the goals; they're quibbling over the means -- or 'quibbling' is the wrong word. 'Debating.' "

Snow, who hosted a Fox radio talk show before joining the White House this spring, has made an effort to reach out to conservative audiences by appearing on his former competitors' programs, including shows hosted by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. "We're certainly more engaged on that front," he said.

And some of the president's neoconservative supporters have fired back on his behalf. Norman Podhoretz, editor-at-large of Commentary magazine, wrote an 11,525-word essay this month rebutting not only Will, Buckley and other traditional conservatives but also fellow neoconservatives who "have now taken to composing obituary notices of their own." He noted that he had been a tough critic of Reagan for betraying conservative values, only to later conclude that Reagan's approach served "an overall strategy that in the end succeeded in attaining its great objective."

Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a reliable Bush supporter, said the disillusionment is not surprising. "People get weary, especially when they expected a war to be over very quickly," he said in an interview. "Supporters fall off over time. I've been disappointed by some of the people who have fallen off, like George Will, but that's what happens."

Few have struck a nerve more than Scarborough, who questioned the president's intelligence on his show, "Scarborough Country." He showed a montage of clips of Bush's famously inarticulate verbal miscues and then explored with guests John Fund and Lawrence O'Donnell Jr. whether Bush is smart enough to be president.

While the country does not want a leader wallowing in the weeds, Scarborough concluded on the segment, "we do need a president who, I think, is intellectually curious."

"And that is a big question," Scarborough said, "whether George W. Bush has the intellectual curiousness -- if that's a word -- to continue leading this country over the next couple of years."

In a later telephone interview, Scarborough said he aired the segment because he kept hearing even fellow Republicans questioning Bush's capacity and leadership, particularly in Iraq. Like others, he said, he supported the war but now thinks it is time to find a way to get out. "A lot of conservatives are saying, 'Enough's enough,' " he said. Asked about the reaction to his program, he said, "The White House is not happy about it."

Read More...

Summary only...

Gov't fulfills few Katrina promises

Gov't fulfills few Katrina promises
By Matt Crenson / Associated Press

Nearly half of New Orleans was still under water when President Bush stood in the Crescent City's historic Jackson Square and swore he would "do what it takes" to rebuild the communities and lives that had been laid to waste two weeks before by Hurricane Katrina.

"Our goal is to get the work done quickly," the president said.

He promised to spend federal money wisely and accountably. And he vowed to address the poverty exposed by the government's inadequate Katrina response "with bold action."

A year after the storm, the federal government has proven slow and unreliable in keeping the president's promises.

"This is not something that is going to be able to be accomplished in 365 days," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "The president has set the federal government on the course to fulfill its obligations."

The job of clearing debris left by the storm remains unfinished, and has been plagued by accusations of fraud and price gouging. Tens of thousands of families still live in trailers or mobile homes, with no indication of when or how they will be able to obtain permanent housing. Important decisions about rebuilding and improving flood defenses have been delayed. And little if anything has been done to ensure the welfare of the poor in a rebuilt New Orleans.

How has the government performed in the most critical areas of the recovery and reconstruction effort?

EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE: A June report by the Government Accountability Office concluded that FEMA wasted between $600 million and $1.4 billion on "improper and potentially fraudulent individual assistance payments."

Government auditors found that debit cards distributed to Katrina victims were used to pay for things like Dom Perignon champagne, New Orleans Saints season tickets and adult-oriented entertainment. The audit also found that people used fictional addresses, fake Social Security numbers and the identities of dead people to fraudulently register for assistance. FEMA also double-deposited funds in the accounts of 5,000 out of the nearly 11,000 debit card holders.

CLEANUP: The job still isn't done. More than 100 million cubic yards of debris have been cleared from the region affected by Katrina. So far the government has spent $3.6 billion, a figure that might have been considerably smaller had the contracts for debris removal been subject to competitive bidding.

Working through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA gave each of four companies contracts worth up to $500 million to clear hurricane debris. This spring government inspectors reported that the companies — AshBritt Inc. of Pompano Beach, Fla., Phillips and Jordan Inc. of Knoxville, Tenn., Ceres Environmental Services Inc. of Brooklyn Park, Minn. and ECC Operating Services Inc. of Burlingame, Calif. — charged the government as much as four to six times what they paid their subcontractors who actually did the work.

HOUSING: In his Jackson Square speech, Bush said his goal was to "get people out of shelters by the middle of October."

By and large that goal was met, with all but a few thousand of 270,000 Katrina evacuees out of shelters by mid-October.

But that didn't solve the monumental housing problem created by Katrina. Most of the people who had been in shelters went to hotel rooms, with FEMA picking up the bill. About 50,000 families who had evacuated to other cities were promised a year of rent assistance, though in April FEMA began cutting off some who the agency said did not qualify for the program. More than 100,000 families moved into trailers or mobile homes parked either in the yards of their damaged houses or in makeshift compounds.

Meanwhile, FEMA flailed and flip-flopped on its contracting policies for trailers, mobile homes and other temporary shelter. The first big contracts were handed out non-competitively to four well-connected companies — Shaw Group, Bechtel Corp., CH2M Hill Inc. and Fluor Corp. Then in October FEMA director R. David Paulison promised to rebid the contracts after Congress complained that smaller companies, especially local and minority-owned firms, should have a chance to compete for the work.

A month after that, FEMA said the new contracts would not be awarded until February. That deadline came and went, and then in March a FEMA official announced that the contracts weren't going to be rebid after all.

A week later FEMA reversed itself again, giving up to $3.6 billion in business to small and minority-owned firms.

"I promised Congress I was going to bid them out, and that's what I'm doing," Paulison said.

REBUILDING: Despite Bush's Jackson Square promise to "undertake a close partnership with the states of Louisiana and Mississippi, the city of New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities," state and local officials had a hard time reaching a deal for federal aid to help residents rebuild their ruined homes.

In January the administration rejected a $30 billion plan for Louisiana as too expensive. The White House also balked at subsidizing the reconstruction of homes in flood plains, a policy that would have excluded all but a small fraction of Louisiana homeowners whose houses were significantly damaged.

The state finally won funding in July for the $9 billion 'Road Home' program, which pays homeowners up to $150,000 either to repair their damaged property or rebuild elsewhere in the state. People who leave the state are eligible for a 60 percent buyout. The money, which is being distributed through escrow accounts to prevent fraud, is just becoming available a year after the hurricane.

LEVEES: The federal government hasn't broken any promises with regard to flood protection — mostly because it has assiduously avoided making any.

White House Katrina recovery czar Donald Powell has said that the administration intends to wait for the completion of a $20 million U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study, due in December 2007, before it decides whether to enhance the flood protection system in southern Louisiana enough to resist a Category 5 hurricane.

A preliminary draft of the study released in July was widely criticized because it omitted five projects that state officials say should be started right away. At the same time, it focused on a massive levee that would stretch hundreds of miles along the Louisiana coast while paying only lip service to the critical task of shoring up the state's vanishing wetlands, which provide a natural barrier to hurricane flooding.

"We're wasting our time and money and attention contemplating large-scale levees across the entire state," said Tim Searchinger, an attorney with the advocacy group Environmental Defense.

The federal government has committed about $6 billion since Katrina to repair and improve the Big Easy's existing levee system. The first goal was to bring the levee system back to "pre-Katrina" levels by the beginning of the 2006 hurricane season on June 1. That goal was largely achieved. The next step will be to make improvements that will bring the system up to what is variously called Category 3 or 100-year protection by 2010.

But planners and state and local officials say that the levees need to be brought up to Category 5 protection, a level that would cost up to $30 billion, if people are to have confidence moving back to areas destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.

POVERTY: Bush offered three proposals in Jackson Square to help combat poverty around the Gulf Coast region. Two of them never went anywhere — the creation of "worker recovery accounts" that would help evacuees find work by paying for school, job training or child care while they looked for employment, and an Urban Homesteading Act that would give poor people building sites for new homes that they would either finance themselves or obtain through programs such as Habitat for Humanity.

A third proposal, the creation of a Gulf Opportunity zone, did come to pass. Signed by President Bush in December, the legislation gives $8.7 billion in tax breaks to developers of low-income housing projects, small businesses and individuals affected not just by Katrina but by hurricanes Rita and Wilma as well. The law also provides debt restructuring for financially troubled local governments in the area.

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. military calling back troops who've been out of uniform for years

USA TODAY
U.S. military calling back troops who've been out of uniform for years

CAMP ANACONDA, Iraq (AP) — Spc. Chris Carlson had been out of the U.S. Army for two years and was working at Costco in California when he received notice that he was being called back into service.

The 24-year-old is one of thousands of soldiers and Marines who have been deployed to Iraq under a policy that allows military leaders to recall troops who have left the service but still have time left on their contract.

"I thought it was crazy," said Carlson, who has found himself protecting convoys on Iraq's dangerous roads as part of a New Jersey National Guard unit. "Never in a million years did I think they would call me back."

Although troops are allowed to leave active duty after a few years of service, they generally still have time left on their contract with the military that is known as "inactive ready reserve" status, or IRR. During that time, they have to let their service know their current address, but they don't train, draw a paycheck or associate in any other way with the military.

But with active duty units already completing multiple tours in Iraq, the Pentagon has employed the rarely used tactic of calling people back from IRR status, a policy sometimes referred to as a "backdoor draft."

According to the U.S. Army Reserve, approximately 14,000 soldiers on IRR status have been called to active duty since March 2003 and about 7,300 have been deployed to Iraq. The Marine Corps has mobilized 4,717 Marines who were classified as inactive ready reserve since Sept. 11, and 1,094 have been deployed to Iraq, according to the Marine Forces Reserve.

The 1st Squadron of the 167th Cavalry RSTA, which is based in Lincoln, Neb. and oversees the New Jersey guard unit here in Iraq, has about 40 IRR soldiers within its ranks of roughly 1,000 soldiers, and officers in the squadron say the troops have merged into the unit without any problems.

Jason Mulligan, 28, of Ridgefield, Conn., left the army back in 2002 after two years in the infantry. He was working as a painting contractor while studying wildlife conservation when he received his letter last fall alerting him that he'd been mobilized.

The letter was followed up by another warning to Mulligan that if he didn't comply, the government would prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.

"My family and my fiancee were telling me 'Don't' report. Don't show up,' said Mulligan, who also serves with a New Jersey National Guard unit as a gunner on a Humvee helping patrol the territory around Camp Anaconda, a base about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "And I thought, 'Well I got that nasty letter saying they were going to put me in jail if I don't show up.'"

Anthony Breaux, 24, from La Place, La., said he had a feeling that eventually he would be recalled to service after hearing of so many other soldiers who were pulled from IRR status. Breaux, who left active duty in September 2002, said he knew it was part of the bargain when he joined the army.

"Well, I signed up. I signed the papers. So you know what? I got to do what I got to do," Breaux said, before getting ready for a reconnaissance patrol around Camp Anaconda.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Arlington, Va.-based Lexington Institute, said part of the reason that the military has called up so many people who were on reserve status is that certain skill sets such as military police or civil affairs were concentrated in the reserves after the Cold War ended.

But he said the sheer numbers of IRR soldiers being mobilized also are a sign that the military doesn't have enough people to fight this war, now in its fourth year.

"It seems clear in retrospect that the active-duty force wasn't big enough to sustain a 'long war' against global terrorism, and also lacked the proper mix of skills to wage that war with maximum effectiveness," Thompson said.

That thought is echoed by many of the IRR soldiers. Mulligan said the military's reliance on IRR soldiers shows how "desperate" the services are for troops.

"Maybe it says something for maybe the way the military is treating the people that are over here, because they're just not wanting to stay on," said Mulligan.

Some of the IRR soldiers, such as Carlson, still will have time on their military contracts when they return from this deployment, meaning they could possibly be called back another time. But others will end their IRR status around the same time their deployment in Iraq ends next spring or will have so little time left that they would not be deployed again.

Spc. Mark Wiles, 27, of Phoenix, said his 6½ years of active duty and the time he'll have served on this deployment mean that his reserve status will be over when the unit gets home. The only way that the military could keep him is if they extended the unit's stay in Iraq.

"Those of us who are IRR are seriously hoping they don't do that," Wiles said.

Read More...

Summary only...

Kerry Calls Lieberman the New Cheney; Senator Labels Bush Iraq Policy 'Disaster,' Lieberman Bid 'Huge Mistake'

ABC News
Kerry Calls Lieberman the New Cheney
Senator Labels Bush Iraq Policy 'Disaster,' Lieberman Bid 'Huge Mistake'
By ED O'KEEFE

Aug. 20, 2006 — - Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., blasted a fellow Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman, for continuing his bid in the Connecticut Senate race despite a narrow loss to newcomer Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary earlier this month.

"I'm concerned that [Lieberman] is making a Republican case," Kerry told ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" in an exclusive appearance.

Kerry accused the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate of "adopting the rhetoric of Dick Cheney," on the issue of Iraq.

"Joe Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut," Kerry added, insisting Lieberman's stance on Iraq, "shows you just why he got in trouble with the Democrats there."

Kerry called Lieberman's independent bid a "huge mistake" and applauded businessman-turned-politician Lamont as "courageous" for challenging Lieberman on the war.

Of his own views on Iraq, Kerry stated forthrightly, "The course of this country in Iraq is making the world more dangerous."

Kerry, the Democrat's nominee for president in 2004, supported the 2003 Senate resolution that ultimately led to the invasion of Iraq, and was criticized throughout his White House bid for then opposing a measure funding continuing operations in that effort. The Bush campaign seized on what they described as Kerry's wavering views on Iraq, which in part led to the senator's 2004 election defeat.

Since 2004, Kerry has steadily sharpened his opposition to the Iraq war, calling for a steady withdrawal of U.S. troops beginning last year.

Kerry told chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos, "Iraq is not the center of the war on terror," while also asserting, "Iraq is in a civil war; of course it's in a civil war."

Kerry said he supports the efforts of Senator John Warner, R-Va., to introduce a second resolution on Iraq if and when the country descends into outright civil war. Kerry believes that moment has come and reiterated, "We have to set a date for the withdrawal," before concluding, "The absence of diplomacy is putting our troops at greater risk and is reducing our ability for success."

On the uncertain ceasefire involving Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah, Kerry said the near-month-long violence "set back" Hezbollah, but did so "at a greater cost to Israel."

Kerry also criticized President Bush's approach to the troubled region.

"I know that I would have handled the diplomacy," he said.

Kerry connected the hostilities between Israel and Lebanon to Iraq, once again proclaiming, "I believe the president's policy in Iraq is a disaster of catastrophic proportions." He said his more diplomatic approach to Iraq might have prevented the instability the region currently faces.

Regarding the 2008 presidential content, Kerry remained uncommitted, but dismissed early polls that seem to frame Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., as a leading contender.

"George, you're talking to somebody who was once 30 points down," Kerry said. "My decision [to run] … will not be based on any poll. It will be based on my vision for the direction of the country."

George Stephanopoulos' entire interview with Kerry can be viewed at "This Week's" Web page at www.abcnews.com.

Read More...

Summary only...

Musicians Rock, Rap and Twang Against the War

ABC News
Musicians Rock, Rap and Twang Against the War
Three Years After the Dixie Chicks Got Pounded for Criticizing President Bush, Diverse Musicians Join the Chorus
By DAN HARRIS and FELICIA BIBERICA

Aug. 20, 2006 — - Anti-war songs are often thought of as a relic of the Vietnam era, but today's stars are now increasingly criticizing the government over the war in Iraq.

Just a few years ago, this was considered a risky career move, but now rocking against the war is, quite literally, all the rage.

Perhaps the most acidic anti-war songs today are coming from an old hand. In the 1960s and '70s, Neil Young raged against the Vietnam War.

Now he has a new album, "Living With War," filled with songs like "Let's Impeach the President." Young says he's never made a record that produced more anger -- or more appreciation.

"I have people holding me by the shoulders with tears in their eyes thanking me for saying these things," he told ABC News.

That a major record label put out this album signals a real cultural shift. In 2003, the Dixie Chicks were bashed and boycotted for criticizing the president.

Today, the Dixie Chicks have a hit record.

Meanwhile, anti-war songs are pouring in from all corners of the musical spectrum -- including country legends such as Merle Haggard, classic rockers such as Bruce Springsteen, pop stars such as Pink, rappers such as KRS-One and punk rockers such as Green Day and Anti-Flag.

"We're trying to get a reaction out of people," said Justin Sane of Anti-Flag. "Even if people don't agree with what we say, we're trying to get people to think."

The proliferation of protest songs is reminiscent of the Vietnam era. But there's one big difference: Today, the musical movement is not accompanied by a mass movement against the war.

"The question is: Why haven't these musicians written the right song to start the movement?" says Dave Marsh, a rock historian. "And the answer to that is: That's not what songs do. What songs do is not start things. What songs do is help sustain them."

With a few notable exceptions, most of today's protest songs have not been big hits. It's also worth noting that, while the Dixie Chicks do have a hit record, they've had to cancel concerts in the South and Midwest, where some radio stations still refuse to play their songs.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush Terror Gel

Read More...

Summary only...

Nice Democracy You Have There!

Read More...

Summary only...

No Hereditary Kings In America

Read More...

Summary only...

Continuous US Job Retraining

Read More...

Summary only...

A hand for an eye

Read More...

Summary only...

Flying The Evil Skies

Read More...

Summary only...

Republican Congress Asleep Re: Security

Read More...

Summary only...

Why Do We Have A Democracy?

Huffington Post
Cenk Uygur
Why Do We Have A Democracy?

Why do we have a democracy if we're not supposed to use it? Supporters of Royal Joe Lieberman are railing against primaries where the will of the voters are taken into account. They say Joe has earned the right to stay in the Senate based on his record. But this isn't about years of service, the rights of incumbents or even meritorious service.

This is about the people of this country choosing their own direction. This is about democracy.

Even if Joe Lieberman was a fantastic Senator of pure heart and great intentions, the people have a right to replace him because he's going in the wrong direction. If you're in New York and you want to get to Maine and a man pulls up and asks to give you a ride to Florida, you're going to turn him down. Even if the man is the best driver in the world, you're still not going to get in the car - because he's going the wrong way.

So, Joe says we should hitch a ride with him to Baghdad. Even if I thought Joe was a swell and loyal Democrat (which I definitely do not), I have to say no. I don't want to drive any further toward Baghdad (let alone Tehran). I want to drive away.

This is not a small issue. This is not about the highway bill or tort reform. He promises if re-elected to vote in direct opposition to the will of the great majority of Connecticut voters on the most important issue. So why would they allow him to do that?

Look, in a democracy we choose people to represent us. We understand that they are not going to agree with all of us on every issue and will at times take stands that might be unpopular. But overall, they are not there to represent themselves - they are there to represent us. If they stop doing that job, then they no longer have a right to that job.

If one of my employees says that out of principle he can no longer do the job I have assigned him, I have no malice towards him, but I have to let him go. If he goes on to say that out of principle he will work against my interests, I will not only fire him but be very amused as he continues to demand that I keep paying him. Why? Why would I hire a guy to work against my own interests? If I wouldn't do it, and you wouldn't do it, why should Connecticut?

Being a Senator isn't a birthright, it is a job. You are sent to represent your state. If you're not doing that and you're asked to leave, you don't get to cry about it. Joe Lieberman acts like he has the right to that Senate seat. He doesn't have the right to a damn thing. He has to convince the people of Connecticut that he will competently and accurately represent their views and wishes. He no longer does, so he no longer should. That's what we call democracy.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ann Coulter Conquers, Air America Sleeps

Huffington Post
Brent Budowsky
Ann Coulter Conquers, Air America Sleeps

Lets give a standing ovation to Ann Coulter for tactical brilliance in achieving a total domination of the modern media, giving her a platform to make many millions of dollars, and successfully supporting the demonization of Democrats and liberals for being the party that supports treason and opposes God.

Meanwhile, would somebody explain to me, why Air America may be the only company
in the history of the entertainment business that adamantly refuses to put out even rudimentary press releases?

The triumph of Ann Coulter speaks volumes about why Washington is today the functional equivalent of a one party state, and why the right perpetually dominates the media message machinery. The lethargy (at best) of the Air America management speaks volumes about why the progressive and moderate viewpoint, which represents far more people than the Bush and Cheney viewpoint, and infinitely more than the Ann Coulter viewpoint, perpetually lags behind and is trapped playing minor league baseball against a world series opponent.

Lets follow the Coulter trial, her m.o. and her patented formula for success:

First she makes an accusation and launches an attack and stops at nothing: even pond scum such as attacking 9-11 widows.

Then she saturates the entire hard core base of the conservative and Republican machine. She launches on talk radio, Sean and Rush and the crowd will either offer crocodile tears, saying they don't completely agree with her, or they simply agree with her. They inject the venom into our body politic. The very idea of a pro and con about whether liberals are traitors or against God is the essential tactic of Joe McCarthy. The very pro and con is the power of the thing: it is impossible to win that debate.

Then, she moves to conservative cable, with Fox giving her the equivalent of a Papal audience, and Fox Lite, otherwise known as MSNBC and CNBC, giving her the megaphone.

Meanwhile, conservative financed publishing, conservative financed newsletters, and the conservative financed magazines give her a publicity blast. CNBC does a one hour solo that I saw repeated at least four times in two days. She is everywhere, saturating and dominating the media, which stimulates books sales, which reach best seller lists, which gets her more appearances everywhere.

Then, finally, the networks. It does not matter if Matt Lauer takes her on; the poison and the venom and the damage is in the repetition of the charge, 24/7, everywhere. When Middle America hears this so repeatedly, they might conclude liberals are evil and Godless traitors, or they might conclude that liberals are not so bad, just merely out of the mainstream, but whatever they conclude, the pro and con debates of this leaves them worse than before the debate began.

Trust me: mark November on your calendar, for the next fearmongering scare that will be broadcast and rebroadcast, written and then re-written, though the same conservative media machine, then the same conservative cable channels, then the Fox-Lite cable, then the networks will have an election eve debate about whether liberals are dangerous to American security.

Perhaps by then, Air America will put out a press release. Perhaps not. I am not referring to the talent on Air America. They have some wonderful people on the air. I am referring to the management of Air America, which does such little outreach, publicity and straight marketing and advertising that they keep the Air America talent more secret than Bush keeps the NSA intercepts!

Here is the strange part. I am not the smartest guy I ever met, but: the American people are fed up with fear and smear media and fear and smear politics, which is why Democrats might win the election in spite of themselves.

Second, the number of people who oppose the status quo is huge, far more than the number of people who support it. And third, the hard core base of progressivism and of the Democratic Party is larger than the hard core base of conservatism and Republicanism.

So: why do we have this giant, huge, powerful media megaphone and money machine on the Right that injects fear, demonization and even the most pond scum attacks into the heart of the entire media? Yet there is virtually zero media megaphone on the other side, even though we represent far more people, with a far larger audience base, which is just as committed as anyone on the right?

Candidly: If I were an investor in Air America I would be staging a hunger strike in front of their office. If I were the management of Air America, I would be reaching out like mad to the progressive equivalent of right wing radio, the blogs, and merging their potential power and reach together and creating an election year war room on the radio.

But Air America is not the problem, only the symptom of the problem, and the real problem is that large right wing money is far smarter than large progressive money, and, frankly, far more committed to their cause. That is the problem: conservatives have superior millionaires to progressives, in ways that matter to win elections and govern the country.

The entire Armada and media machine of the Right, which is more than thirty years old, could have long ago been matched and then surpassed by progressives and moderates who represent far more people. At a minimum when Bill Clinton controlled the White House and the Democrats controlled one or both houses of Congress, there should have been a very systematic and well funded megaphone and media to speak to the under-represented majority who remain under-represented today.

But it didn't happen; not in 1992, not in 1996. It did not happen with the rush to war in 2002, which most Washington Democrats supported. It did not happen in 2004, even when our war hero nominee was slandered by the smear. It did not happen in 2006, when the major money people of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement allow many of the best voices for people and ideas to struggle to survive even though they speak for the overwhelming majority of real people who support Democrats.

Any one big Hollywood star could change the world by putting money where it matters, to create the alternative to the right wing media and megaphone machine. Any one of the 100 largest Democratic contributors could change the course of American history by financing, empowering and giving voice to those who speak for and mobilize the majority that is largely unheard, while the pond scum attacks reach the best seller list and dominate the major media.

The hard truth is: their money people give generously and brilliantly measured in billions of dollars to a massive machinery of ideas and communication and message. Ours do not. Ours put virtually no money, where it matters the most. Even when they would make profit by so doing, they still don't. It is Kafkaesque.

I am actually getting optimistic, because the winds of change are blowing and money is starting to move. But those of us who believe our national security is not merely a matter of of exploding bombs but must lead with a battle of ideas, must understand that the first battle of ideas begins at home. We will not win elections by liberals telling liberals how much they detest Ann Coulter, though I am glad to jon in.

We will win elections, lead the nation, and make America the best it can be when we build and finance the megaphone that will end the one party state once and for all, by ending the one party media that makes it possible.

Read More...

Summary only...