Sen. Daschle: REAL ID Is A Modern Day Poll Tax

Senator Daschle and Think Progress today honors Rosa Parks, one of our countries great Civil Rights heroes. Daschel does so by taking a stand against the "REAL ID", a national ID standard legislation pending in Congress.
I have mixed feelings about this idea, mostly about the need to have some sort of standard for IDs for Homeland Security purposes, the possibility of misuse of this ID much like the Social Security number is for identity theft and by a government that seem increasingly inflexible arbitrary and not enforcing Civil Liberties, even those contained in the Bill of Rights. I have similar mixed feelings about using it to identify voters.

Today we’re reminded of the life of Rosa Parks and her commitment to freedom and opportunity for all Americans. She inspired us with her actions, not just with her words. She reminds us with her life that only through action and commitment to the principles of our constitution will we succeed in fulfilling the aspirations of our nation’s founders.


Rosa Parks tried to register to vote for the first time in 1943. Because of onerous requirements, she was denied that basic constitutional right until her third try in 1945. That is my test for any election reform – does is empower voters like this heroic woman? Or does it raise needless impediments to her voting?


I have been very concerned about the increasing calls for States to use the new REAL ID driver’s license for voter identification at the polls. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) already addresses the potential for fraudulent registration by individuals claiming to be someone they are not. I have not yet heard evidence that this reform is not working. Nor have I heard that the potential for fraud in voter registration or multiple voting will not be addressed once States fully implement the HAVA requirement for computerized, statewide registration lists.


REAL ID is a driver’s license, not a citizenship or a voting card. At this moment, 12% of the voting age population lacks a driver’s license – and you could expect that number to be much higher among the poor and others who have faced numerous challenges as they have tried to exercise their right to vote.


The documents required by REAL ID to secure a driver’s license include a birth certificate, passport or naturalization papers, a photo identity document, and proof of Social Security number. Obtaining such documents can be difficult, even for those not displaced by the devastation of a hurricane. For all these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that for some, a requirement for photo identification constitutes nothing short of a modern day poll tax.


– Tom Daschle

If one must produce birth certificate, passport or naturalization papers, a photo identity document, and proof of Social Security number to get a REAL ID, then the standard is too high. In Minnesota, proof of residency is all that is needed. A utility bill, a rental lease, tax documents with name stamped, and a ID'd neighbor vouching for another is the current standard for voting. A similar standard with some standard of verification by the government entity could be used for a REAL ID.

Our Democracy Has Been Tainted By Billionaires

Informed Comment

The extraordinary exchanges between New York Times editor Bill Keller and reporter Judith Miller over her role in the Plame scandal and reporting on non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have suggested to me a wider context of the entire matter.


The wider context is that Rupert Murdoch*, and Richard Mellon Scaife^, and other far rightwing billionaires have deeply corrupted our information environment. They are in part responsible for what happened at the NYT.


* Columbia Journalism Review: 'Murdoch uses his diverse holdings . . . to promote his own financial interests at the expense of real news gathering, legal and regulatory rules, and journalistic ethics. He wields his media as instruments of influence with politicians who can aid him, and savages his competitors in his news columns. If ever someone demonstrated the dangers of mass power being concentrated in few hands, it would be Murdoch.


^ The total of Scaife's giving--to conservatives as well as many other beneficiaries--exceeds $600 million, or $1.4 billion in current dollars, much more than any previous estimate.

It's a sad day in America when public opinion in manipulated behind the scenes by media giants whose only interest is to further their own agendas. That is the America that the right-wing of Republican Party has unleashed. They are the closest thing we have to fascists in this country. Indeed, many of them are.
In other news on Plame gate, Empty WheelThe Next Hurrah reports:

NYT management is sacrificing Saint Judy in an attempt to hide their own complicity in the Plame Affair.

Well DUH! Honestly folks, he does a great job of laying his speculation out for all to see.
And then there Think Progress latest insight:

“Scooter” Libby first learned Plame’s identity from a conversation with Vice President Dick Cheney.

Ok, well now the big fish will fry? Ummm... We'll have to wait and see.
I swear people are so anxious waiting for the shoe to drop at Fitz's place that they are speculating about speculations. Fun, isn't it? Good news has been a long time a coming....

Ideologues in the White House

Pragmatism is sometimes called the only philosophy with American roots.
Wikipedia

Pragmatism is a school of philosophy which originated in the United States in the late 1800s. Pragmatism is characterized by the insistence on consequences, utility and practicality as vital components of truth. [...] Rather, pragmatism holds that it is only in the struggle of intelligent organisms with the surrounding environment that theories and data acquire significance. ...pragmatists argue that what should be taken as true is that which most contributes to the most human good over the longest course. In practice, this means that for pragmatists, theoretical claims should be tied to verification practices--i.e., that one should be able to make predictions and test them--and that ultimately the needs of humankind should guide the path of human inquiry.

The old cliche "the proof is in the pudding" comes to mind. "I'm from Missouri, show me." These are American values, a viewpoint on the world that is practical and demonstrated by results, not by pretty concepts or logical arguments.
Ideologues have not faired well in this century of political America. The names of McGovern, Goldwater, both Eugene and Joseph McCarthy are names of ideological leaders fell largely because of their belief in ideas that had little historical basis in practical outcomes. Richard Nixon was basically a pragmatist, but his paranoia made him act in illegal ways when confronted with a challenge. Ronald Reagan on the surface appeared to an ideologue. I think his "success" was largely an artifact of the pragmatic advisors he had around him and his multiple approaches he had to every problem. The "scatter gun" approach appears, at least in the short run, effective.
George Dubya Bush is an ideologue. Some say he believes he is on a mission from God. Certainly, he doesn't respond very well to facts that call to question his assumptions. His strategists such as Rove are pragmatists. His foriegn policy has been driven by Neocon ideologues. Up until now, his spin meisters have enabled to continue acting out his disasterous agenda without being held accountable. That time now seems to be ending.
This week, the facade crumbles. Monday, an interview of Brent Scowcroft, a man from the GWH Bush Administration with broad credibility in Washington, is published in The New Yorker. Later this week Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is expected to indict Administration heavy-weights in the Plamegate investigation.
Here is a teaser from the Scowcroft interview. It pretty well documents the ideological roots of the Bush Administration Iraqi policy. Thanks to Brad Delong for the link.
The Washington Note Archives

A principal reason that the Bush Administration gave no thought to unseating Saddam was that Brent Scowcroft gave no thought to it. An American occupation of Iraq would be politically and militarily untenable, Scowcroft told Bush. And though the President had employed the rhetoric of moral necessity to make the case for war, Scowcroft said, he would not let his feelings about good and evil dictate the advice he gave the President.

[...]
Scowcroft said of Wolfowitz, "He's got a utopia out there. We're going to transform the Middle East, and then there won't be war anymore. He can make them democratic. He is a tough-minded idealist, but where he is truly an idealist is that he brushes away questions, says, 'It won't happen,' whereas I would say, 'It's likely to happen and therefore you can't take the chance.' Paul's idealism sweeps away doubts."


Wolfowitz, for his part, said to me, "It's absurdly unrealistic, demonstrably unrealistic, to ignore how strong the desire for freedom is." Scowcroft said that he is equally concerned about Wolfowitz's unwillingness to contemplate bad outcomes and Kagan's willingness to embrace them on principle. "What the realist fears is the consequences of idealism," he said. "The reason I part with the neocons is that I don't think in any reasonable time frame the objective of democratizing the Middle East can be successful. If you can do it, fine, but I don't think you can, and in the process of trying to do it you can make the Middle East a lot worse."


He added, "I'm a realist in the sense that I'm a cynic about human nature."

Scowcroft's Coming Whipping of the Bush Administration

It seems the New Yorker will quickly sell out tomorrow. Scowcroft's article is expected to be a public whipping of the Bush Administration and to include a lesson from Daddy to Dubya as well. I wait with bated breath. Empty Wheel at The Next Hurrah has some facts and anticipatory speculation about what we might discover down the road about Scowcroft's involvement in Plamegate. The fact is another stunning revelation of the public cover-up of high level complicity in Plamegate by quoting from Wilson's book:

In Fall 2002, as both Scowcroft and Wilson started publishing op-eds against regime change, Scowcroft was at least partially responsible for bringing Wilson to the attention of the Administration. Scowcroft brought a copy of Wilson's San Jose Mercury News column to show some people in the White House.

I sent my article to Scowcroft, Baker, and the president's father out of courtesy, because I referred to the lessons learned in the diplomacy of the first Gulf War.

[...]
Brent called me when he received the article. He kindly asked if he could "take it over to the White House," only about two blocks from his downtown office. He said that he thought senior officials ought to read the views of somebody who actually had experience in Iraq and with Saddam's government. By this, I took him to mean that he intended to share it with the national security adviser, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, or her deputy, Stephen Hadley. (Wilson 295-6)

So Scowcroft is--at the very least--witness to the fact that someone in the Administration knew about Wilson well before his July 6 2003 article.

He goes on to speculate with some credibility that Wilson and Scowcroft made numerous attempts to get the Bush Administration to correct the record on Niger in the run up to the war. If this is true, it's unconscionable that Scowcroft didn't speak up BEFORE we went to war, rather than just before indictments are handed down to cover his butt.

Condi Wants to Talk to Iran?

RADIO FREE EUROPE/ RADIO LIBERTY

Iran said today it will not engage in direct contact with the United States to discuss Iraq. Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mentioned the United States could seek direct contact with the Iranian government to discuss concerns insurgents are crossing into Iraq from Iran and that Iran was supporting Shi'ite groups in Iraq.


Iran's ISNA news agency cites Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi as saying Rice's suggestion of talks conflicted with the hostile U.S. attitude toward Iran. Assefi said if the U.S. wants direct talks with Iran, Washington would have to change its stance towards Iran.


Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2005 RFE/RL, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Either Rice is a well meaning idiot or she wants to continue to stack the cards against Iran by inviting them to talk face to face in a situation that they would look weak to accept. That invitation guaranteed the response.
Informed Comment

Secretary of State Condi Rice suggested Thursday that the United States talk directly to Iran about Iraq. I know about partisan politics and all, but Rice should really be congratulated and praised for daring to say this, and to buck the American Enterprise Institute and the Project for the New American Century and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on the issue. Alas, the Iranian response was not forthcoming. I have a suggestion for Rice: you can't start at this high level. Start with a track two meeting in a neutral country, among academics from both countries who are well connected politically. Things might develop from there.

Juan Cole avoids all condescension by suggesting to Condi that her idea was a good one, but that the initial approach needs to be through informal unofficial channels. Juan teaches Condi a lesson in international diplomacy? I congratulate him on his attempt. But I think Condi learning is about as likely as Iran's Foreign Minister sitting down with Condi anytime soon.
The most likely explanation is the former above. Condi has been actively isolating and rallying the west against Iran, apparently with some success. It's not likely she was really suggesting a sit down. This is just another opportunity to show Iran being uncooperative.

U.N. Report Sees Syrian Involvement in Hariri's Death

Washington Post

A U.N. investigation has implicated senior Syrian and Lebanese officials in the assassination of Lebanon's leading reformer in a move that U.S. and European officials expect will generate new international pressure on the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad.


In blunt language, the report by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis concluded that the Valentine's Day bombing of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others "could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security officials and could not have been further organized without the collusion of their counterparts in the Lebanese security forces."

Assad and his government are in deep trouble from these allegations of a conspiracy to kill Hariri. Even Syrian pundits can't foresee the outcome of this.

Brown Was Eating Dinner, Unavailable While New Orleans Drowned

Now the inside story of what FEMA Director Brown was doing while Katrina drown New Orleans. He is still on the FEMA payroll.
Washington Post

For 16 critical hours, Federal Emergency Management Agency officials, including former director Michael D. Brown, dismissed urgent eyewitness accounts by FEMA's only staffer in New Orleans that Hurricane Katrina had broken the city's levee system the morning of Aug. 29 and was causing catastrophic flooding, the staffer told the Senate yesterday.


Marty Bahamonde, sent to New Orleans by Brown, said he alerted Brown's assistant shortly after 11 a.m. that Monday with the "worst possible news" for the city: The Category 4 hurricane had carved a 20-foot breach in the 17th Avenue Canal levee. MORE

Is Bush Part of the Cover-up of Plamegate?

Talking Points Memo

Perhaps the best example of this was yesterday's Daily News story by Tom DeFrank, which provided the first clear evidence that President Bush has known who the culprits were from the beginning and possibly failed to disclose that to Patrick Fitzgerald in their interview last year. Why would White House officials sell the president out like that? The question becomes more pointed when you note that DeFrank, as we discussed yesterday, has long been close to people in the Bush world.


So what's the story? According to knowledgeable sources, those White House officials behind that story were trying to help the president, not hurt him. The story, in their view, was about his unhappiness with what Rove had done but his loyalty to those who work for him. Now, the first thing you have to say on this is that there are some folks in the White House who are pretty stupid.

If the reader doesn't remember, Bush made a pretty emphatic statement back in April of 2004.
New York Times

The White House took the unusual step last year of specifically denying any involvement in the leak on the part of several top administration officials, including Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, has repeatedly said no one wants to get to the bottom of the case more than Mr. Bush.

If true, this seems to suggest Bush will be indicted for perjury when he failed to tell Fitzgerald of his knowledge in 2003. Perhaps, rather than as Josh suggests, the Bush Administration already knows Bush is to be indicted and they are garnering sympathy.

Poll Says Americans Overwhelmingly Support Medicare and Medicaid

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE


A new Harris Interactive poll that measures support for each of 12 different health-care policies, programs or practices, finds significant public support for a range of issues ranging from the conventional to more controversial.


The online survey of 2,242 U.S. adults found an overwhelming majority (96%) of Americans "strongly" or "somewhat" favor Medicare, the medical assistance program for the elderly and disabled, while 91% say they support Medicaid, the program to assist people with very low incomes.


The poll also showed high support for policies or practices that are considered more controversial. Eighty-seven percent of those polled say they support funding of international HIV prevention and treatment programs, while 75% favor universal health insurance, compared with 17% who oppose it. Another 70% support embryonic stem-cell research, compared with about 19% who oppose it.

So how is it that the new House leadership thinks they can jam a $50 million cut to Medicaid down our throats?

Former Powell Aide Says Bush Policy Is Run by 'Cabal'

Powell's chief of staff has some chilling things to say about the Bush Administration. It certainly explains why Powell bailed after one term after being completely cut out of influence.
New York Times

Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff has offered a remarkably blunt criticism of the administration he served, saying that foreign policy had been usurped by a "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal," and that President Bush has made the country more vulnerable, not less, to future crises. The comments came in a speech Wednesday by Lawrence Wilkerson, who worked for Mr. Powell at the State Department from 2001 to early 2005. Speaking to the New America Foundation, an independent public-policy institute in Washington, Mr. Wilkerson suggested that secrecy, arrogance and internal feuding had taken a heavy toll in the Bush administration, skewing its policies and undercutting its ability to handle crises.
"I would say that we have courted disaster, in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita - and I could go on back," he said. "We haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time."


Mr. Wilkerson suggested that the dysfunction within the administration was so grave that "if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence."


Mr. Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel and former director of the Marine Corps War College, said that in his years in or close to government, he had seen its national security apparatus twisted in many ways. But what he saw in Mr. Bush's first term "was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberration, bastardizations" and "perturbations." "What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues," he said. The former aide referred to Mr. Bush as someone who "is not versed in international relations, and not too much interested in them, either." He was far more admiring of the president's father, whom he called "one of the finest presidents we've ever had."


Mr. Wilkerson has long been considered a close confidant of Mr. Powell, but their relationship has apparently grown strained at times - including over the question of unconventional weapons in Iraq - and the former colonel said Mr. Powell did not approve of his latest public criticisms.

Wait until Monday when Brent Scowcroft will publish his critic of the Bush Administration in The New Yorker.

Cheney aide cooperating with CIA outing probe

The indictments are clearly on the way. One target is John Bolton, but I have to wonder how Libby, Cheney, and Rove can dodge the bullet.
The Raw Story

A senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney is cooperating with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, sources close to the investigation say. Individuals familiar with Fitzgerald’s case tell RAW STORY that John Hannah, a senior national security aide on loan to Vice President Dick Cheney from the offices of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John Bolton, was named as a target of Fitzgerald’s probe. They say he was told in recent weeks that he could face imminent indictment for his role in leaking Plame-Wilson’s name to reporters unless he cooperated with the investigation.

[...]
Hannah is currently under investigation by U.S. authorities for his alleged activities in an intelligence program run by the controversial Iraqi National Congress (INC) and its leader, Ahmed Chalabi. According to a Newsweek article, a memo written for the Iraq National Congress (INC) raised questions regarding Cheney’s role in the build up to the war in Iraq. During the lead up to the war, Newsweek asserts, the INC was providing intelligence on the now discredited Iraqi WMD program through Hannah and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff.
MORE

The Real Casualty Count From War

Casualty figures have been manipulated in every war. Starting in Vietnam, the US has made casualty figures a means to maintain support for the war by reporting inflated enemy casualties. Starting with the Gulf Wars, casualty reports have been shorted on our own troops. No, I can't say I know that the US is lying about deaths and wounded among our troops. I do know that the Department of Defense has a number of other catagories of casualties that are not included in the total. Most of these casualties may not have been recognized as such in previous conflicts. However, the services own actions tells us they do count these casualties now, they just don't report them. I'm talking about Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental health issues that develop while troops are in combat situations. The figures I've been seeing suggest one can double the number of wounded and come up with roughly a count of those with a medical discharge due to mental health conditions.
Here is some data that suggests it's much worse than that. The more we learn about the consequences of war, the more we need to wonder under what circumstances are the losses worth the gains. Certainly not in Iraq or Vietnam.
USATODAY.com

More than one in four U.S. troops have come home from the Iraq war with health problems that require medical or mental health treatment, according to the Pentagon's first detailed screening of servicemembers leaving a war zone. (Related: Troops screened as never before)


Almost 1,700 servicemembers returning from the war this year said they harbored thoughts of hurting themselves or that they would be better off dead. More than 250 said they had such thoughts "a lot." Nearly 20,000 reported nightmares or unwanted war recollections; more than 3,700 said they had concerns that they might "hurt or lose control" with someone else.
These survey results, which have not been publicly released, were provided to USA TODAY by the Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine. They offer a window on the war and how the ongoing insurgency has added to the strain on troops.
Overall, since the war began, about 28% of Iraq veterans — about 50,000 servicemembers this year alone — returned with problems ranging from lingering battle wounds to toothaches, from suicidal thoughts to strained marriages. The figure dwarfs the Pentagon's official Iraq casualty count: 1,971 U.S. troops dead and 15,220 wounded as of Tuesday.

Rove Told Jury Libby May Have Been His Source In Leak Case

Washington Post published an article today that nicely sums up what is known about Whitehouse culpability in the outing of Plame, including the latest leak from the Grand Jury room.
White House adviser Karl Rove told the grand jury in the CIA leak case that he thinks I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, "may" have told him that Plame was a CIA agent before her name went public. Rove also claims he "may" have heard it from someone else in the White House too. Although he isn't sure who he talked to, he is sure that the topics discussed were only information they had already heard from reporters. How can a person be unsure about a conversation, yet still be sure about it's source? It's been reported widely that John Hannah, an aide to Cheney, is supposedly telling friends he's expecting to be indicted.
Not only is Rove playing football with the "truth", White House insiders are starting to point fingers. A wedge between Bush and Cheney is looking more likely than ever. The leaks about Cheney most recently may be more about driving that wedge deeper than new information. All this sounds like another pro-active dirty tricks campaign that Karl Rove is known for.
There is one other tidbit I hadn't heard before. Bill Harlow, CIA public affairs director, was contacted by Novak about the Plame information and told Novak not to publish her name or information about her. One would have to wonder why a reporter would act against the wishes of the CIA. This certainly puts to question the ethics of Novak, something I've been wondering about all along. Reporters have a way of creating news by serving as the conduit for leaked information. In this case, leaking this information constituted a violation of the law and a major breach of security with very serious consequences.
MORE

Cheney to Resign?

USNews.com

Sparked by today's Washington Post story that suggests Vice President Cheney's office is involved in the Plame-CIA spy link investigation, government officials and advisers passed around rumors that the vice president might step aside and that President Bush would elevate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.


"It's certainly an interesting but I still think highly doubtful scenario," said a Bush insider. "And if that should happen," added the official, "there will undoubtedly be those who believe the whole thing was orchestrated – another brilliant Machiavellian move by the VP."


Said another Bush associate of the rumor, "Yes. This is not good." The rumor spread so fast that some Republicans by late morning were already drawing up reasons why Rice couldn't get the job or run for president in 2008.


"Isn't she pro-choice?" asked a key Senate Republican aide. Many White House insiders, however, said the Post story and reports that the investigation was coming to a close had officials instead more focused on who would be dragged into the affair and if top aides would be indicted and forced to resign.
"Folks on the inside and near inside are holding their breath and wondering what's next," said a Bush adviser.

Emptywheel at The Next Hurrah has a very interesting theory about how Judy Miller, Cheney, Libby and Rove were involved in a cover-up conspiracy and they all met in Jackson Hole at Cheney's house in August 2003. Details at the link. Stay tuned!

Gunning for the Poor

Gunning for the Poor

Congress is back in session, and it's gunning for the American poor.


A revolt of House conservatives has persuaded that body's Republican leadership to offset the increased federal spending going to rebuild the Hurricane Katrina-devastated Gulf Coast by reductions in Medicaid, food stamps and other programs for the indigent. If things go according to plan, this week the House will begin to cut $50 billion from those efforts.


The emerging Republican response to Katrina, apparently, is to comfort the drenched poor and afflict the dry. For a moment last week, it looked as though the Republicans were going to enact across-the-board spending cuts. That, however, would have meant less money for defense contractors and the highway industry and other contributors to congressional Republicans' campaigns. GOP committee chairmen made that point so forcefully that the idea was scrapped. The beauty of taking the cuts out of Medicaid and student loan programs, by happy contrast, is that it doesn't reduce the flow of funds to the Republican campaign committees by a single dime.


Even before the right-wing House leadership capitulated to the even further right-wing House rank-and-file, the government's response to Katrina already appeared to be driven more by laissez-faire ideology than by need or common sense. The administration has opposed efforts by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley to extend Medicaid coverage to those Katrina survivors who lost their jobs and health insurance in the flood. And by suspending the requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act that construction workers on federally funded reconstruction efforts be paid the prevailing wage, President Bush has ensured that much of that work will be done by illegal immigrants, as one recent New York Times report on the Mexican workers rebuilding Gulfport, Miss., made abundantly clear. (In their ongoing contest of core values, the Republicans are still more anti-labor than anti-immigrant.) More broadly, the administration increasingly acts as if the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast will sprout from the bottom up.


But businesses can't really invest in the region absent assurances that the infrastructure will be rebuilt, that public services will be restored, that taxpayers will be returning to live and work there. That's why Louisiana Republican Rep. Richard Baker has proposed that the federal government create a Louisiana Recovery Corporation to coordinate these massive tasks. But the administration has not only paid little heed to Baker's proposal, it has failed to create any coordinating body of its own.


What we have here is an ideologically driven dereliction of duty. If the Bush White House had been put in charge of the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer and Teller would still be puttering around in the New Mexico desert today. And it gets worse. The same Republican zealots who demand fiscal responsibility by cutting $50 billion for the indigent sick are now also demanding a new $70 billion in tax cuts, including the permanent repeal of the estate tax, that would chiefly benefit the rich. For a few brief weeks after Katrina, Republicans actually suspended their advocacy of tax cuts, but this onset of sanity came to a shuddering halt once the cameras were removed from the Superdome.


Not that it seems to bother them in the least, but the Republicans' post-Katrina priorities and those of the American public couldn't be more diametrically opposed. Earlier this month, Peter Hart's polling firm asked respondents if they believed cutting Medicaid and like programs by $35 billion (the GOP's targeted cut had not yet risen to $50 billion) and cutting taxes by $70 billion was the right or wrong priority. By a margin of 67 percent to 24 percent, the respondents said it was wrong. And in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last week, 48 percent of those questioned said they wanted the to control the next Congress, while just 39 percent favored the Republicans.

Do these guys understand how many will die without medical coverage? Can the secular right-wing of the Republican party be so calloused? My experience with who populates the secular right-wing are Social Darwinists, those who want to see the poor solve their own problems by dying off.
Is this the kind of America you want?

The Fate of 'Made in the USA'

Wondered why good paying jobs are drying up in the US? It's not soley about globalization, it's about China playing a growth hand at our expense. And Bush policies of borrowing all the China surplus puts them even further in the catbird seat. Remember when the Republicans used to complain the Dems were weak on defense? The US is at it's weakest point it's been since acquiring superpower status. That status is being squaundered on a Bush adventure in Iraq.
Washington Post

But one giant unknown clouds everything: China. Until now, its booming U.S. exports have mostly displaced exports from other countries. As China modernizes -- moves into more advanced industries -- this could change dramatically. The combination of low wages, a huge market and an artificially low currency confers staggering competitive advantages. They constitute a powerful magnet for foreign investment in many sectors, whose output could subsequently be exported. Unless the currency rises substantially, the United States could lose many industries that, by all other economic logic, it shouldn't. Therein lies the real threat of extinction or something close to it.

Judy Miller Had "Security Clearance" To Report Rumsfeld's Spin

Empty wheel at The Next Hurrah has some interesting insight into the supposed "security clearance" Judy had that "embedded" her with the Bush Administration.

Judy's embed rules (and presumably, security clearance) were not approved by military censors. Rather, they came from an agreement she personally struck with Rummy. I go into this in obssessive detail in my series on Judy. But based on her portrayal of 'Secret Squirrel' Yankee Fan and a few others, I'm fairly convinced the sources and methods Judy is hiding are details of veracity, not security. That is, Judy has clearance to report on staged stories. Her clearance is about reporting the details Rummy wants reported and hiding the really sketchy provenance for those stories. It has almost nothing to do with a real security clearance, with trying to prevent any info that would compromise national security from being released. (Although, this is probably more and more true of security clearances in BushCo--they're hiding their lies, not our vital truths.) All this doesn't not definitively explain which side of the security clearance issue Judy comes down on. Perhaps she does have clearance, but getting it was contigent on Judy writing precisely the stories they wanted her to write, on never questioning the stories she was given. Or perhaps she doesn't have clearance at all. When you deal entirely in fictions, why would you need clearance?


One more thing. The nature of her embed suggests Rummy's personal involvement here. Is it possible he gave her "clearance" without going through the normal channels of clearing someone? That is, it possible her clearance isn't clearance at all, just Rummy's carte blanche to circulate classified information? Fitz seems to know a bit about Judy's clearance. I wonder if he knows how she got that clearance?

So, it would appear that Judy Miller was just another instrument of propaganda for the Bush Administration. That certainly makes Judy a reporter to hold in distain. On it's face, this action seems to also violate the covert propaganda law like the bought media hacks for "No Child Left Behind."

Impeach Bush!

The Independent UK

George Bush told the Prime Minister two months before the invasion of Iraq that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea may also be dealt with over weapons of mass destruction, a top secret Downing Street memo shows. The US President told Tony Blair, in a secret telephone conversation in January 2003 that he "wanted to go beyond Iraq". He implied that the military action against Saddam Hussein was only a first step in the battle against WMD proliferation in a series of countries. Mr Bush said he "wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation", says the letter on Downing Street paper, marked secret and personal.

The Downing Street memos represent the most damning information about any President in many years. Lying to the American people to bring about a war of aggression in the most volital part of the world is unconscienable. Starting that war with a grandiose assessment of our military abilities was simply stupid. Bush needs to be impeached because not only is he willing to say or do anything to get his way and violate his oath of office, but most of all because he is so stupid he is dangerous to America.

Iran: Truth or Disinformation

Now that Bush has taken American credibility to it's lowest point in memory, I find myself doubting most everything I read that has the look of coming from the White House. This article is a good example. Since the author quotes Rice and other American sources, I have to wonder if this is just more disinformation about Iran. It will be interesting to see what France says about this report. I will watch for an article.
Telegraph

Former members of the Russian military have been secretly helping Iran to acquire technology needed to produce missiles capable of striking European capitals.


The Russians are acting as go-betweens with North Korea as part of a multi-million pound deal they negotiated between Teheran and Pyongyang in 2003. It has enabled Teheran to receive regular clandestine shipments of top secret missile technology, believed to be channelled through Russia.


Western intelligence officials believe that the technology will enable Iran to complete development of a missile with a range of 2,200 miles, capable of hitting much of Europe. It is designed to carry a 1.2-ton payload, sufficient for a basic nuclear device. MORE

Judy's Collegues Don't Much Like Her Either

Judy Miller's collegues have been speaking out about her for a long time. It is amazing that the NY Times would allow a propaganda plant from the Bush Administration to stay this long.
Washington Post

Craig Pyes, a former contract writer for the Times who teamed up with Miller for a series on Al Qaeda, complained about her in a December 2000 memo to Times editors and asked that his byline not appear on one piece. "I'm not willing to work further on this project with Judy Miller," wrote Pyes, who now writes for the Los Angeles Times. He added: "I do not trust her work, her judgment, or her conduct. She is an advocate, and her actions threaten the integrity of the enterprise, and of everyone who works with her . . . She has turned in a draft of a story of a collective enterprise that is little more than dictation from government sources over several days, filled with unproven assertions and factual inaccuracies," and "tried to stampede it into the paper." Pyes said yesterday he had no problem with the articles as published, which helped win one of two Pulitzer Prizes he shared at the paper.