The "flypaper" continues to work its magic

We'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them "here".

Evidently "here" not only doesn't include Jordan in general but also Israel:

(CNN) -- In what may be a sign that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terror group is expanding its operations, Al Qaeda in Iraq has posted a statement claiming responsibility for firing missiles from Lebanon into northern Israel earlier this week.

Is there anyone on the right who STILL believes that "flypaper" crap? (Do I need to ask? Does a bear defecate in the woods?)

When you're creating "reality", why let the facts inconvenience you?

Guffaw, guffaw

I'm sure there's quite a few wingnuts on the right who'll get a chuckle out of this story:

HOUSTON, Texas (Reuters) -- The Washington couple at the heart of the CIA leak investigation had their cover blown by their small son as they tried to sneak away on vacation Thursday.

"My daddy's famous, my mommy's a secret spy," declared the 5-year-old of his parents, former diplomat Joe Wilson and retired CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Quick! Get Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate that kid! Throw him in jail! Haw! Haw! It's funny! Bob Novak outed her and still gads around free! Then her kid outs her and it's all cute and funny and stuff! Hee hee haw *snort* heh indeed.

'Cause you see, it's funny to trivialize treasonous acts.

There's always a "but -"

We don't torture, BUT -

an amendment to the latest Defense Appropriations bill will allow use of evidence obtained through torture:

The amendment, introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham, Carl Levin and Jon Kyl, would severely curtail federal court review of detainees' cases, allow military tribunals to rely on evidence gained from torture, and undermine vital ongoing attorney-client relations for Guantanamo detainees.

But the Preznit says we don't torture. And we certainly don't send people to countries where they're likely to be tortured, as Condoleeza Rice told us. So where would the "evidence gained from torture" come from in the first place?

Would it be too difficult for these idiots to come up with arguements that are, well, consistent? Or do blatant Louisville-Slugger-to-the-head lapses of logic like that just not occur to BushCo or their apologists?

I liked it better when he was pretending to read the "Salt" book

Anti-Imperialists Beware - Bush Is Reading Again

WASHINGTON - According to the White House, U.S. President George W. Bush has taken two books with him to Texas for his holiday reading, which he will presumably indulge between his favourite ranch pursuits -- clearing brush and biking.

[snip]

The second book on Bush's reading list, "Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground" by Robert Kaplan is far more worrisome in its implications, at least for the remaining three years of his presidency.

Kaplan, who began his career as a self-described "travel writer" in the 1980s, has evolved into a political thinker whose outlook is explicitly imperialist -- a term that he has used and re-used in recent years with unabashed approval -- and, in the words of one conservative reviewer and retired Army colonel, Andrew Bacevich, "reactionary".

[snip]

Instead of the Great Plains and western reaches of the 19th century U.S., however, today's "Injun Country", as Kaplan calls it, consists of the entire Islamic world, from the southern Philippines to Mauritania, as well as other un-governed or misgoverned areas in desperate need of order and civilisation.

And who best to civilise these places and their inhabitants than the U.S. military, specifically the "imperial grunts" with whom Kaplan embedded himself -- no doubt with the enthusiastic support of the Pentagon and probably Rumsfeld himself -- for weeks at a time in various parts of the world on three continents, and who, not incidentally, bear a striking resemblance to Bush's own self-image?

[snip]

In one telling piece of analysis, he describes the presumed thoughts of a Filipino in Zamboanga, presumably a descendant of Moro who resisted, at the cost of tens of thousands of their lives, U.S. imperialism 100 years ago: "His smiling, naïve eyes cried out for what we in the West call colonialism."

Oh, yes, just what we needed; a return to the Good Ol' Days of colonialism. THAT'LL get them to Stop Hating Us.

Heads we win, tails you lose

Remember the post I did the other day about how the TSA wants to screen returning vets, based partially from VA records, for "mental deficency"?

Well, that's assuming they can even get a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder from the VA in the first place:

The growing national debate over the Iraq war has changed the nature of the discussion over PTSD, some participants said. "It has become a pro-war-versus-antiwar issue," said one VA official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because politics is not supposed to enter the debate. "If we show that PTSD is prevalent and severe, that becomes one more little reason we should stop waging war. If, on the other hand, PTSD rates are low . . . that is convenient for the Bush administration."
[snip]
PTSD experts summoned to Philadelphia for the two-day internal "expert panel" meeting were asked to discuss "evidence regarding validity, reliability, and feasibility" of the department's PTSD assessment and treatment practices, according to an e-mail invitation obtained by The Washington Post. The goal, the e-mail added, is "to improve clinical exams used to help determine benefit payments for veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder."

"What they are trying to do is figure out a way not to diagnose vets with PTSD," said Steve Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, a veterans advocacy group. "It's like telling a patient with cancer, 'if we tell you, you don't have cancer, then you won't suffer from cancer.' "

So, yipee. BushCo is pushing to let vets go untreated for any PTSD they may develop, 'cause it costs too much otherwise... and if they DO bite the bullet and pass a diagnosis (and funding doesn't get cut, leaving even those diagnosed in the lurch) and they DO get treatment, they're in danger, as I said, of being taken out by an overexcitable air marshal.

But THEY'RE the ones who Support The Troops, y'know.

The shell game continues

Boy, isn't it wonderful that the Pentagon and Rumsfeld have told us that things are better in Iraq and we can start to draw down troops there and bring them home?

Oh, wait:

WASHINGTON — Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace said Sunday that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase next year, not decrease, if the insurgency continued.
[snip]
"So if things go the way we expect them to, as more Iraqi units stand up, we'll be able to bring our troops down and turn over that territory to the Iraqis," Pace said on the Christmas Day edition of the talk show. "But on the other hand, the enemy has a vote in this, and if they were to cause some kind of problems that required more troops, then we would do exactly what we've done in the past, which is give the commanders on the ground what they need. And in that case, you could see troop level go up a little bit to handle that problem."

Well, imagine that. And on Christmas, when nobody will be watching or paying attention to the news! Gosh!

From the last time

A Pentagon spokesman said today that "the corner defninitely has been turned" toward victory in South Vietnam and Defense Department officials are hopeful that the 12,000-man United States force there can be reduced in one to three years...
-The New York Times, May 8, 1963

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara:"...We are going to bring back several hundred before the end of the year, but ...on the question of the exact number I thought we would wait until the meeting of November 20th."
- The New York Times, November 15, 1963

...This statement, reflecting a decision of the National Security Council, said the program for training Vietnamese troops should have progressed by the end of the year to the point "where one thousand United States military personnel" could be withdrawn.
-The New York Times, November 25th, 1963

Sec. of Defense McNamara:"We continue to be hopeful that we will be able to complete the training responsibilities of many of the other United States personnel now in Vietnam and gradually withdraw them over the period between now, and the end of 1965."
-The New York Times, February 19, 1964

Sec. of Defense McNamara::"...We believe the U.S. policy in reducing military personnel in South Vietnam as the Vietnamese become capable of carrying on the logistical training and other programs which we are presently supplying to them is sound and should be continued."
- before the House Appropriations Committee, March 24, 1964

Sec. of Defence McNamara:"...It think we'll begin to see the signs of that progress in the months ahead. It's going to be slow, however; the war's going to be long; it can't be won quickly - no guerilla war has ever been won quickly..."
-before the Advertising Council, May 6, 1964

(all quotations from Triumph or Tragedy - Reflections on Vietnam, by Richard N. Goodwin, Vintage Books, 1966; pages 132-135)

More "supporting the troops"

TSA Wants Access to Veterans’ Files to Add ‘Mental Defectives’ to Watch List

A Nov. 15 notice put out by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is always thinking about new ways to keep potentially dangerous people off our airliners, states TSA is looking for contractors to add a number of new databases for screening passengers and airport workers.

Up first are the files of the Defense Department (DoD) and Veterans Administration (VA), which the TSA says it wants scoured for “mental defectives.”

As if troubled veterans didn’t have enough to worry about. According to a 2004 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study, about 15 percent of the soldiers coming home from the intense guerrilla wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to be afflicted with what was once called “combat fatigue.”

Well, isn't THIS adorable? The Bush (mis)Administration sends solders off to an illegal war of agression, refuses to equip them fully, encourages the Iraqi resistance to attack them, extends their tours of duty indefinitely, then, when they FINALLY get to come home, messed-in-the-head by what they've seen and what they've been through, they're put on a "mental defectives" watch list by the TSA and will possibly have escaped a war zone only to be shot by an over-zealous air marshal.

Bush is NOT on the side of the military. They're only lil' green army men to him, props and toys to be played with then thrown aside when they're no longer fun or useful.

Speaking of breaking the law

...I see one of my fav-or-ite mega-corporations is under criminal investigation once again:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. on Tuesday said federal prosecutors were investigating whether it had improperly transported returned goods, ranging from hair spray to charcoal, that are deemed hazardous waste.
[snip]
According to the Wal-Mart, the government is looking into whether the company improperly used its own trucks to transport material deemed hazardous to centralized facilities, rather than using certified hazardous waste carriers to ship that material directly to designated disposal sites.

Wal-Mart break the law? Why, NEVER!

how could they even SUGGEST such a thing!?

Why, given Wal-Mart, I'm suprised they even bothered to transport the stuff instead of spit-polishing it and sticking it right back on the shelf.

What Bush may be thinking of

FISA paragraph 1811:

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

Of course, note that A) there is a 15-day limit on the authorization, and B) there must be a declaration of war by Congress, neither of which apply in this case.

Which explains why Bush felt he had to cut the FISA court out of the loop entirely.

BTW, interestingly enough, paragraph 1805 states:

(a) Necessary findings
Upon an application made pursuant to section 1804 of this title, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified approving the electronic surveillance if he finds that—
(1) the President has authorized the Attorney General to approve applications for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence information;
(2) the application has been made by a Federal officer and approved by the Attorney General;
(3) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power: Provided, That no United States person may be considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States

as opposed to:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You say you have an obligation to protect us. Then why not monitor those calls between Houston and L.A.? If the threat is so great, and you use the same logic, why not monitor those calls? Americans thought they weren't being spied on in calls overseas -- why not within the country, if the threat is so great?

THE PRESIDENT: We will, under current law, if we have to. We will monitor those calls. And that's why there is a FISA law. We will apply for the right to do so. And there's a difference -- let me finish -- there is a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to know the distinction between the two. (Bush press conference, 12/19/05)

Contempt for the law -- that's all this is.

Oh, for chrissakes!

I just get done with the previous snark about expansion of the FBI spying program to PETA and Catholic Worker, and what do I find over at AMERICAblog? (link from Eschaton):

Pentagon anti-terror investigators labeled gay law school groups a "credible threat" of terrorism
[snip]
According to recent press reports, Pentagon officials have been spying on what they call "suspicious" meetings by civilian groups, including student groups opposed to the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual military personnel.
[snip]
A UC-Santa Cruz "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" protest, which included a gay kiss-in, was labeled as a "credible threat" of terrorism.

Further proof: we need to see that damn NSA list, NOW. We're two for two on government spying abuse; we need to know, up front, whether or not thePreznit-ordered NSA surveillance was abused ALSO.

Yet more spying

Preznit Bush, Saturday:

"This is highly classified program crucial to our national security" and "its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks," Bush said.

Done in a limited manner and only in context of anti-terrorism, in other words.

Oh, REALLY?:

WASHINGTON - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.
[snip]
One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Now, yes, I realize that the two programs (FBI versus NSA) are two different things. I realize that the fact that the FBI program was expanded to surveil such HORRIBLE threats to America as Catholic Worker and PETA doesn't mean, necessarily, that the NSA program expanded similarly. But the fact that the one was abused means all the more that we, the people our government SUPPOSEDLY serves, should know the who, what, where and when of the NSA surveillance.

No precedent

Evidently President WATB the other day argued that the Congressional authorization for war after 9/11 gave him the power to do, pretty much, what he wanted:

"The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th . . . is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities," Bush said in his weekly radio address on Saturday.

But (suprise!) there's some who take issue with the sweeping implications of that:

"The president is taking an unusually expansive view of what the Constitution allows him to do in disregard of Congress, and he is probably wrong," said Susan Low Bloch, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University. "His claim of power is too extreme."

Somehow, we managed to make it through the Cold War and fifty-some-odd years of the threat of global thermonuclear war with the Constitution relatively intact. Now, based on the events of a single Really Bad Day brought about by a small band of men with boxcutters, we're now expected to just let the Executive do what he will, Constitution be damned.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- some bunch of probable terrorists, July 4, 1776

Links

Allow me, if I may, to put a point on this NSA wiretapping thing. I've heard from the Bush defenders, and we've heard from Bush himself, that this was only limited to "persons of interest", linked to acts of terrorism and to al-Qaeda. (Therefore, presumably, the lawbreaking that went on was perfectly justified based on who it was against. Federal vigilanteism, in other words).

Well, this is the same group who made their case for invading Iraq partially on the idea that Iraq and al Qaeda were linked - which idea has been proven false.

Now we're told that even if the wiretapping was wrong, illegal even, it was Done For The Right Reasons and we should just shut up and trust in our leaders. The people being tapped were Bad People, linked to terrorism, and if we don't want Another Really Bad Morning we won't object to some Bad People being surveiled.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again, as someone or other once said.

Anger rising again

I know, I know, I don't update worth squat...

...but is there a frickin' department of the government which ISN'T spying domestically?

It's the FBI...

then it's the CIA...

then it's the Pentagon...

now it's the NSA:

President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States -- without getting search warrants -- following the Sept. 11 attacks, The New York Times reports.

Oh, but wait! Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice comes along, saying that

President George W. Bush is doing everything he can to protect Americans from terrorism, but with "due regard" for civil liberties.

and

While not commenting on intelligence matters, Rice said the president has acted lawfully "in every step that he has taken to defend the American people."

Well, considering that Rice is the one who went to Europe recently to argue that we don't do "extraordinary rendition" of people to countries where we know they'll be tortured (arguements which were ineffective, at best) forgive me if I don't buy it.

Especially when the guy responsible for writing the legal justification for the program is the SAME PERSON who wrote justifications for torture:

The NSA activities were justified by a classified Justice Department legal opinion authored by John C. Yoo, a former deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel who argued that congressional approval of the war on al Qaeda gave broad authority to the president, according to the Times.

That legal argument was similar to another 2002 memo authored primarily by Yoo, which outlined an extremely narrow definition of torture.

So this appears, to my jaundinced prejudiced lefty eyes, anyway, as yet another "we're not REALLY breaking the law 'cause we just
re-wrote the law in question" case from the White House, at best.

Flash back to just a couple years ago, when "no man was above the law":

In any language other than Clintonese this man has violated the principles of the office he was elected to uphold. He has broken the law. He has demonstrated no remorse. He assumes no responsibility. He says the words, but anyone who has ever dealt with a habitual liar can see right through him. I hope and pray his morals and standards are not representative of the general character of American society. I hope and pray the American people do not allow this man to continue to represent America. He is an American nightmare.
[snip]
As an American, I would like to see his removal from the Oval Office. This president looked me in the eye through the television, lied and withheld the truth for seven months. Will he pay back the costs of delaying the investigation? He cannot be trusted. When will he have another "critical lapse in judgment."
[snip]
Clinton has done more to diminish that dignity than any president (maybe even more than Nixon).
[snip]
What a disappointment. I was stunned by his anger, denial and arrogance. This could have been a perfect opportunity to put this behind him by showing some sort of remorse.
[snip]
I am totally insulted by his pseudo-apology! He spent 90 percent of the time blaming others for his predicament. Ultimately, it is HIS behavior that has caused staff and friends to have to cover for him all these months. How dare he place other innocent people in morally and legally compromising positions, and then have the audacity to blame it all on the special prosecutor and claim it nothing more than the result of a witch-hunt!!
[snip]
When the president lies to the American people about his affairs, most of us grumble about Washington but if the president lied under oath during the Paula Jones grand jury proceedings, the man belongs in JAIL! He is not above the law when it comes to the core beliefs of this country.
[snip]


Boy, things have sure changed, haven't they?